Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members' business, order of the day No. 4 (Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013) on the Notice Paper, for the Federation Chamber being returned to the House, and debated and proceeded with forthwith.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent private Members' business, order of the day No. 4 (Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013) on the Notice Paper, for the Federation Chamber being returned to the House, and debated and proceeded with forthwith.

Speaker, if I could just take up a moment of your time, I seek to suspend standing and sessional orders because I think it is absolutely vital that this bill be dealt with before this parliament rises and because, without this suspension, the bill will lapse. The essence of this bill is to preserve the high standards currently in place among maritime engineers in Australia. There is an urgent need to preserve those standards, because there is every possibility that the current pressure to drive the standards down will succeed and, in particular, that the push to drive down the standards will result in the minimum training period being reduced from three years to just one year. We are a maritime country, and it is simply not an option to reduce maritime standards, which would diminish our good name and, more importantly, put our crews, our passengers and our vessels at risk. That is why this suspension must be supported.

I would add that it is my understanding that the Selection Committee had in fact decided that this matter should be dealt with today and the government has somehow moved the business to the Federation Chamber. I think we should respect the wishes of the Selection Committee. I think—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just caution the member for Denison. Discussing what goes on in the Selection Committee without having seen reports is, as I have mentioned to others, a breach of privilege, and it is not actually up to the Selection Committee where or how things go. I am just giving you the same advice I gave to the member for Cook earlier this week.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Speaker. I may need to apologise, but my understanding was that the Selection Committee had in fact selected the bill to be dealt with today.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will not go into discussion.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Speaker. In any case, there is only a week left in this parliament, and I would hope that every member of this parliament would be mindful of the need to maintain the very high standards of our maritime crews. Surely we do not want to put them at risk, we do not want to put the passengers on their vessels at risk, we do not want put the vessels themselves at risk and we do not want to put our nation's very good name in this regard at risk. That is why I think that standing and sessional orders should be suspended, we should bring this down from the Federation Chamber right away and we should debate it and deal with it today.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and exercise my right to speak. I represent the most populated area of the Great Barrier Reef, and we constantly have vessels losing their motors and smashing onto the reef, letting oil go free all over the place. I have said on many occasions that we need passages set out and we need nautical coordinates that are available to all vessels that go through these passages.

We have failed to get that off successive governments, but it is absolutely vitally important that when ships come into or operate in Australian waters we have someone there who knows what they are doing with respect to motors and engines. A lot of the vessels coming in now are flagged overseas vessels and the people that are on them simply do not have anything like the qualifications that are required. A person who gets on a boat in Australia should have some sort of guarantee that the person operating and responsible for those engines knows what they are doing. They need to have a piece of paper that says that they are a trained and certified person.

Any effort to lower that standard is very serious indeed. Vessels are coming into our waters now with no standards at all. I can tell you of a number of cases that have occurred where we found out the vessel floundered because there was no-one on board who could fix a motor or whatever else needed to be fixed to keep the vessel functioning. To give you one quick example, I was sitting with the head of the Coast Guard in Cardwell and he said, 'At 11:30 I have to vacate, I have to go out and get a vessel coming in.' I asked, 'Why? What is going in?' He said, 'A vessel has lost its motor and it is smashing up against the seven- or 14-kilometre pier, whatever it is, at Lucinda.' The vessel loses its motor and is smashing up against the pier. Not only will that do incredible damage to that very valuable piece of Australian infrastructure, but it is going to sink on the reef, leaving its oil all over the place.

There is, of course, loss of life. Most importantly of all, we have a lot of tourist vessels operating. When people get on those vessels, they should have the confidence that the person in charge—as the old varsity song used to say—of the engine room is a varsity engineer. We do not require him to go to university but we do require him to have technical tertiary qualifications that enable him to do the job. They need to be a little bit more than just a diesel fitter. I think we should be going in the opposite direction to people trying to say, 'No, we should not have these rules, anyone can go into an engine room.' That is not where we want to be going. In fact, we need to be going in the opposite direction. So I absolutely applaud the resolution on suspension of standing orders from the honourable member and back it very strongly.

It is a very serious issue for anyone, particularly anyone who represents marine tourism and commercial boats that are carrying coal, copper, beef and whatever in and out of North Queensland and over the Great Barrier Reef. We have a particular interest in this authorisation which we are acquiring here. So we plead with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to realise that consideration of downgrading is completely out of the question. We must upgrade the requirements and licensing of these people. Vessels coming in from overseas should all have a certified engineer in the engine room. I very strongly support my colleague from Denison.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am opposed to this opportunistic resolution from the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy. I say with respect to them: don't come here and lecture about what the alleged interests of Australian shipping are before you are actually aware of the facts of what this legislation is and will do. The shadow minister has not even had a briefing from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority about these issues. This is a deeply irresponsible and deeply opportunistic position that would lead to a shutting down of Australian ships and a consequential loss of massive productivity for our nation.

This proposition suggests that there is something before the Australian parliament to downgrade. There is no such proposal before the Australian parliament, none. The union responsible for putting this legislation forward has not bothered to knock on my door, as the minister in a Labor government, about the consequences of this legislation. They have not bothered to knock on the door and the deputy chair of the House of Representatives committee in this area knows full well how irresponsible this legislation is. He should talk to the leader of his party about it because his leader has also had direct briefings from Australian shipowners, the Australian shipping industry—you know, the one that put the red ensign on the back of the flags—that say they will not be able to operate if this legislation came in.

Whatever motivation people have for this being put forward, this is deeply opportunistic as is this suspension of standing orders. The opposition over here is allowing and wanting this to go forward, having put forward a proposition from the member for Cook. If they vote for this proposition to suspend standing orders, they will be voting to knock off his MPI—the so-called big issue he is concerned about and that the opposition are concerned about. That is why standing orders should not be suspended. They also should not be suspended on the basis of what happened earlier today. What happened earlier today was that an amendment was moved on the floor of the parliament by a government member that had not been seen by an opposition member

When that was pointed out to me as Leader of the House, even though there was a majority sitting over here, I quite rightly moved the adjournment of that. If this bill were to be brought on and were it to be allowed further debate—and there are further speakers from the government who wish to speak on this bill, what does this do?

The opposition's position in supporting this suspension—if they indeed support it—says that, when you have government bills before this parliament, everyone has a right to speak, but, when you have a private members' bill, it has a higher authority than a government bill. It can have just a couple of speakers in the Federation Chamber, and then we will bring it down here. Let me tell you: if it is brought down here, there will be considerable debate and a range of amendments to the legislation so it does not shut down the industry. There will be in the order of more than 80 that will be debated one by one. If we want to go down this track—and I say to the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy: with due respect, neither of them nor any of the other crossbenchers can say that at all times I have not attempted to facilitate fair and proper consideration of items of business that they have wanted to put forward. To move a suspension of standing orders to bring on a private members' bill to debate in this parliament is a complete abrogation of those proper processes and an abuse. I say this—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am being misrepresented.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. There are other forms of the House. It is not a point of order at this stage.

Mr Katter interjecting—

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. He has been in the parliament long enough to understand the processes. The minister has the call.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the proposition before this parliament I say to the member for Kennedy: have a look at what we have done to increase monitoring of REEFVTS and protect the coastal region in North Queensland. When we had shipping reform, we had a committee—the deputy chair is here—that issued a unanimous report in October 2008. In February 2009 I formed an advisory group of industry leaders to help us work out how to implement that report. I followed this up during the 2010 election campaign with shipping policy commitments. On 1 December 2010 I released a discussion paper that proposed important reforms and invited submissions to be provided by the end of January 2011. As you are all aware, in January last year I established three industry reference groups which consulted and provided advice to the government on tax and regulatory and workforce elements—a proper process. We produced an exposure draft of the bill. We had debate on the bill in this parliament—a proper process that engaged industry and unions in full participation.

The joke here is that the members of the opposition, who are attempting to take the Independent members moving this motion today for a ride, say it does not matter, because nothing will actually happen when it goes through the Senate. Nothing will happen anyway, so do not worry; we are just in on this because we have had people knock on our doors and say, 'This is an attack on one union by another union,' and that is all we will engage with. So be it, I say, but do not be used by the opposition for what essentially is another element of their consistent anti-union agenda.

I say to the members opposite that, if this bill did pass, it would result in Australia introducing outdated and inconsistent standards with global shipping, resulting in Australian shipping contravening international training and certification standards and conventions. The national president of the union that is putting this forward would no longer be eligible and certified and would be knocked out of the industry. I say to them as well that how training in this country is done is not in a way that is put in legislation. If you do training in legislation, when technology changes, you cannot change the training. You cannot adapt. This is an industry where technology changes. You cannot enshrine training in legislation. That is not what happens in industries across the board. It does not happen in electricity. It does not happen in plumbing. It does not happen across the sectors. You cannot do that. This is really an extraordinary proposition. It creates the precedence of setting training standards in legislation outside of the national vocational education and training system—outside of the VET system. This is an attack on that whole system, and that is why this bill needs to have proper further consideration—

Mr Katter interjecting—

With due respect to the member for Kennedy, he has had no discussion with me on this legislation—none. And he is seconding this resolution. I know a bit about this industry and I have a proud record in this industry. I understand and respect the position of the member for Kennedy, which is why I say to him: do not proceed with this. Have a sit-down with me and some of the experts— (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this motion to suspend standing orders. I had wished to talk on the Maritime Engineers Qualification Bill 2013. With respect to the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy, both of whom I have great respect for—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And obviously I am married to a North Queenslander. Most of my spare time is spent up in North Queensland. I have a great attachment to the reef and understand the importance of it, which is why I oppose this suspension of standing orders. If the member for Denison gets his way with this piece of legislation, I believe it would be a complete misunderstanding—by the member for Kennedy in particular—of what takes place in the maritime industry.

It is an old-school approach—the old 'time-served' approach—to the competency-based approach of education. The world has moved on from the old days of being an indentured apprentice or the like. Now, we have the VET system—

The member for Kennedy interjecting—

That is a debate for another day.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton will ignore interjections.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always so lively with the member for Kennedy here.

The reality is that this piece of legislation would undermine our maritime industry and, as the Speaker of the House said, it would mean that our maritime industry would not meet the international standards. Under Labor, we have done a lot with AMSA to make sure that we have much safer pieces of legislation to ensure that the coral reef is protected.

As the member for interjections would know, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority ensures, under Labor, that it is—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton will resume his seat. The member for Dawson on a point of order.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member certainly is not talking about the suspension. He is debating the actual bill and he should talk to the suspension.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson will resume his seat. The member for Moreton will refer to the motion before the chair.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in my introductory comments, the reason this suspension should not be supported is that the member for Denison is talking about introducing legislation on which there has not been consultation with the opposition.

As any member representing an electorate abutting the Great Barrier Reef would know, we should be doing all that we can to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I know that the Liberal and National party members from Queensland have a slightly different approach. I remember the day after the state election when the Deputy Premier said, 'We should make the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park smaller.' That was not mentioned before the election, but, the day after, Jeff Seeney said that on the record, and there was not a peep out of those opposite.

I know how important it is that we protect our Great Barrier Reef, and this legislation put forward by the member for Denison makes incorrect assumptions about training. This 'time-served' approach was for a different time—back in the 1200s—and it has served its purpose.

But we are now in the middle of the digital age—the technological age—when information is more than doubling every six months. It took thousands of years for information to double in the world, but now it is doubling every six months or less. So, as technology changes, we need to make sure that our sailors, our merchant seamen and women are competent in what they need to do.

The member for Denison is a proud Tasmanian. I have been to his electorate and I have seen a lot of the memorabilia on the docks of Hobart and it is of a different time. Now there are not a lot of telescopes and sundials; there is a completely different approach to maritime navigation—it is the digital world. The GPS means that we can track vessels completely differently.

So we no longer need to have a 'time-served' approach for the standards of our sailors. It is completely different, and such a proposal would be completely contrary to all modern training practices. That is the reality. If you had a look at a modern ship—I have just been involved with an inquiry that looked at this in the cruising industry—you would see the modern changes. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is one simple reason why standing orders should not be suspended in this instance, and that is that this is the time to debate the matter of public importance.

The matter of public importance today is moved by the member for Cook. The member for Cook is frequently heard in this chamber, often at loud volumes, speaking about the importance of debating asylum seekers. That is an important debate to be had here. I would be very happy to engage in that debate to speak about why it is that the opposition are not willing to back the recommendations of the Houston panel. Why the opposition, on the issue of asylum seekers, choose cheap political slogans rather than the advice of experts like Angus Houston, Michael L'Estrange and Paris Aristotle. Why the opposition would rather send boats back to Indonesia, a country that says no, than strike a deal with Malaysia, a country that says yes.

That, Deputy Speaker, as I understand it, is the matter of public importance that you yourself have chosen to be the most important debate to be had before this House. But the opposition have now suggested that we should stop that entirely to instead bring on debate and bring back to this place discussion over maritime laws—discussion that is still being debated in the Federation Chamber. (Time expired)

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to clarify that the Selection Committee on 5 June in its report listed this for decision today.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Denison will resume his seat. If I got that wrong, my apologies. I am just feeling a little tender around people playing loose with the truth with the selection committee at this point in time, so if I got that wrong, my apologies.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.