Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) Australia, as an island nation, has a national interest in fostering an Australian coastal shipping industry for economic, environmental and national security reasons;

(b) comparable major trading nations have strong regulatory systems in place to support their coastal shipping industries;

(c) in 2012 the former government put in place a broad package of taxation, regulatory and workplace reform to revitalize Australian shipping; and

(d) people who perform work in Australia should be paid according to Australian-standard wages and conditions; and

(2) calls on the Government to act to support and promote the Australian coastal shipping industry, and to actively support Labor's recent changes to give the industry the certainty it needs to invest in new Australian flagged shipping.

Australia has a strong national interest in fostering our own coastal shipping industry, and the shipping industry holds particular significance for my electorate of Newcastle. The port of Newcastle is the world's largest coal export port and one of Australia's largest ports by throughput tonnage. It has a 215-year history of commercial shipping and is the economic and trading centre for Newcastle, the Hunter Valley and much of northern and north-west New South Wales. The port of Newcastle plays a critical supply chain interface in the movement of some 40 different cargoes and manages more than 4,600 ship movements every year.

In addition to its role as a trading port, it has been a key water berth for our nation's shipbuilders for nearly a century, with Royal Australian Navy and commercial ships being built in the yards of Newcastle, Carrington and Tomago. From HMS Strahan and Condamine, built in support of our World War II defence in the 1940s, to the Huon class minehunters, built in their entirety in Newcastle in the 1990s, to today with more than a third of the three air warfare destroyers being built at Forgacs, Newcastle is home to a highly skilled shipbuilding industry. The port of Newcastle is no doubt one of my electorate's most important economic contributors, leading to the employment of thousands of Novocastrians. Regretfully, this highly profitable port was recently privatised by the New South Wales Liberal government, and Newcastle continues to battle with Sydney to secure our fair share of the spoils.

However, more broadly, to put the case for Australia's strategic national interests in a local shipping industry: we are the world's largest island nation with the world's longest coastlines, and 10 per cent of world trade moves to and from Australia by sea. Shipping is important in terms of our economy, our environment and our national security. For an industry to operate confidently and successfully, certainty is required. We have seen the damage to the renewable energy industry in Australia when uncertainty reared its ugly head because of the actions of the Abbott Liberal government. We have also seen, through this government's willingness to send our naval shipbuilding contracts offshore, our shipbuilding industry on the brink of collapse, with hundreds of jobs at Newcastle shipyards already gone. We cannot see the same thing happen to our coastal shipping industry. In 2012, Labor gave the shipping industry in Australia certainty. It is vital that the reforms we introduced are maintained. These were not autocratic reforms. They were laws drafted in response to extensive consultations with all the stakeholders. To move away from these reforms that have been in place for less than three years now will almost certainly work to destabilise the shipping industry. We have already seen signs of this through recent ship flagging decisions.

Since its election, the government has vowed to undo Labor's reforms and effectively walk away from shipping; just like it is walking away from our shipbuilding industry. This is madness. The coastal shipping laws put in place by Labor created a level playing field for Australian ships rather than allowing undercutting on costs, including wages. The Abbott government, on the other hand, wants to introduce 'Work Choices on Water'. This was outlined in Budget Paper No. 2 last month, which stated a desire for:

Since many shipping companies base their ships in Third World nations to minimise their pay levels and working conditions, this was an explicit statement that the government wants to impose massive reductions in pay and conditions. This of course is not a new phenomenon, but it is no less damaging now than in the past. The former Minister for Transport and fellow Novocastrian, Peter Morris, outlined some of the dangers associated with ships operating under flags of convenience in his well-known and highly regarded Ships of Shame report in 1992. Tonight, ABC's Four Corners will outline some of the current-day dangers with their expose into the events on board the MV Sage Sagittariusthat saw three lives lost in 2002.

Rather than engage in a race to the bottom, as this government proposes, we should focus on the actions of comparable major trading partners like the US, Japan, the UK and Europe as a whole—all free market economies with clear, strong frameworks for the shipping industry to operate within. Current laws introduced by Labor help strike an important balance between competition and the national interest. The government's proposal, on the other hand, will decimate the shipping industry and have long-term, negative safety, economic, environmental and national security implications for Australia.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do we have a seconder for the motion?

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My home state of Tasmania is an island state, and therefore the issue of shipping is of vital importance to our future prosperity. Coastal shipping and international shipping are key enablers in ensuring that quality Tasmanian produce and manufactured goods are able to reach domestic and international markets. Coastal shipping is at the heart of our competitiveness and our ability to ensure that Tasmania optimises the benefits of the trifecta of free trade agreements that were negotiated by the coalition in 2014, and all of the indicators are encouraging. Demand for Tasmanian seafood and agricultural products continues to grow. The $60 million in federal funding announced recently for irrigation schemes will fund five new schemes, providing 95 per cent water certainty and allowing the conversion of marginal land to something much more productive. Efficient and readily available coastal shipping is therefore essential to ensure that our clean, fresh, quality produce will grace growing Asian markets from India to China.

That is why Labor's meddling in coastal shipping while in government has proven to be such a disaster for our industry. That is why the government is moving to untangle the mess of regulations that undermine the viability of coastal shipping. It is undoubtable that under Labor the cost of shipping went up and the number of Aussie ships went down. Labor presided over a halving of our major coastal shipping fleet, with coastal licences plummeting from 30 vessels in 2006-07 to 15 in 2013-14. From 2010 to 2030, under what Labor has in place, Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent but coastal shipping will only increase by 15 per cent. Instead of helping to revitalise Australian shipping, Labor's Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act has badly hurt the industry. Over the first two years of the coastal trading act, there was a 64 per cent decline in the carrying capacity of the major Australian coastal trading fleet.

I will give you a case study to demonstrate. Bell Bay Aluminium in my electorate of Bass is, sadly, one of the few businesses of its size left in northern Tasmania. Its importance cannot be overstated. It uses 25 per cent of Tasmania's total electricity, contributes $700 million each year to gross state product and provides over 1,000 direct or indirect jobs. The general manager is a good man, Ray Mostogl, who has won CEO Magazine's Manufacturing Executive of the Year award. Mr Mostogl has constantly called for something to be done to fix Labor's coastal shipping act. He has said publicly that after Labor introduced the coastal trading act in 2012:

… BBA faced … a 63 per cent increase—

in freight rates. He says:

This … led to greatly reduced shipping options and competition …

Critically, he identifies sea freight as 'one of the key means to keep the Bell Bay smelter viable'. Mr Mostogl draws a clear link between Labor's legislative gift to the MUA, the increased costs that followed and the impact on the very viability of his company. Mr Mostogl has revealed that leaving ships idle at ports for a day before loading can commence, as demanded by the MUA, costs foreign vessels about $10,000 a day and Australian ships more than $20,000 a day. He points out that freight rates from Tasmania to Queensland in the first year of Labor's coastal trading act rose dramatically, from $18.20 a tonne in 2011 to $29.70 a tonne in 2012, while internationally in the Southern Hemisphere rates are about half that, at $17.50 a tonne. Mr Mostogl is one of the many stakeholders demanding reform to increase flexibility and affordability for users of coastal shipping. So while the member for Grayndler and his MUA mates revel in the shrine that has been established for him by Paddy Crumlin from the MUA, and the MUA are no doubt thrilled at this legislative gift that is given to them, it has been bad news for my home state of Tasmania.

Labor has been cheered on by the Greens, who in the Launceston Examiner denigrated Bell Bay Aluminium and three other major industrial companies in Tasmania as having:

… exaggerated … because they want a handout.

There is nothing you can say about that, Mr Deputy Speaker, except that it is callous indifference to jobs in my electorate of Bass. Shame on them for these coastal shipping regulations. I will be strongly supporting the coalition's repeal of these appalling Labor coastal shipping laws.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Newcastle for tabling this motion. I have a strong natural sympathy for the concerns she has expressed, being the representative of a major working port and of significant shipbuilding and maritime industry precinct in my electorate of Fremantle.

In 2012, the Labor government introduced and passed a number of bills that were aimed at revitalising coastal shipping in Australia. This first meant addressing a number of measures and practices that took hold during the period of the Howard coalition government, especially those that gave free and ill-conceived rein to foreign-owned and foreign-flagged vessels through the misapplication of the permit system. But it also meant providing incentives for Australian shipowners to upgrade and renew an ageing fleet of Australian vessels, and encouragement for those who operated Australian-registered vessels and who employed Australian seafarers.

These initiatives went hand in hand with further measures to advance the international competitiveness of Australian shipping, and to make our contribution to supporting stronger international labour laws and safety compliance. They were, frankly, long overdue and they represent an important achievement of the Rudd-Gillard Labor government. As the minister, Anthony Albanese, stated at the time:

We are a country where 99.9 per cent of our exports are moved by ships, and there will soon be no Australian shipping fleet to revitalise. We need to act now or we will simply not have an industry at all, and an Aussie flag on the back of an Aussie ship will be consigned to history … This is sensible policy to level the playing field with our international competitors.

I note that some of these shipping reforms supported the improvement of basic working conditions for seafarers around the world and were championed by the Maritime Union of Australia. As I noted in my speech on coastal shipping in 2012:

The largest branch of the MUA has been and continues to be a critical mainstay of social values and industrial rights in Fremantle and Western Australia. The MUA has always been one of my community's strongest, most vibrant foundation blocks: an organisation whose contribution to the social capital in Freo goes far beyond its important industrial work to also encompass the wider general values of collective trust, care and obligation and the wider specific concerns in areas like safety, health, the environment and social justice.

The labour movement in this country is motivated by the best values and best interests of people everywhere, especially working conditions, not only for Australians but for all workers. The last thing we want to see is Work Choices on water.

Any assessment of the proper regulation of Australian shipping and of coastal shipping in particular is much more than a narrowly framed question of economic efficiency. To some degree the member for Newcastle's motion states the obvious in noting that we are an island nation, yet it is a point that has to be made, because in this day and age of easy international air travel and digital communication it is possible to forget that our lifeline, in many respects, remains dependent upon sea freight. And in the circumstances of any regional conflict or instability, the availability of Australian-owned vessels is a critical security consideration.

Many countries recognise the importance of a domestic shipping capacity on that basis and therefore regulate to support their own national fleets. If one is happy to let the existence of an Australian-owned shipping fleet be determined and dictated by the cold winds of laissez-faire economics, then it is more than likely that Australia will soon be left without any meaningful capacity in this regard, especially when many comparable nations are active in protecting their own domestic shipping fleets.

The United States is an excellent example, notwithstanding its image as the pre-eminent champion of the free market. Like the US, we have experience of needing access to shipping in times of conflict, both in war and, more recently, in some of our regional peacekeeping efforts. But unlike the US, we have been inclined—certainly under coalition governments—to overlook that aspect of our security and to pull away the regulations designed to buttress Australian shipping.

As I have said before, if your basic mindset sees all regulations as red tape and only judges policy in terms of how successfully it leaves us exposed to market forces then you will always be at risk of missing the bigger picture in which sensible regulation is part of an holistic web, like a circulatory system or a safety net.

What is also at threat as a result of the government's neglect in this area is coastal shipping as part of the broader freight task in this country. I know as a Western Australian that the opportunity in future to have more freight delivered by sea and less by road, whether that is to Fremantle or other regional destinations, is an important contributor to a lower carbon economy and to lowering the urban and regional impacts of road freight. We have to ask ourselves: is it really sensible to sit back and allow—or even to facilitate, as this government appears intent on doing—the severe dwindling of an Australian owned shipping fleet, the continuing decline of Australian flagged vessels and the corresponding decrease in Australian coastal shipping? Common sense tells us it is not, and I hope the Abbott government heeds this call to respect and enhance the work done by the former Labor government in support of Australian shipping.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing forward this motion on coastal shipping. To put this whole debate in context: the current system is simply not working. Yes, one option is to tinker around the edges. That may make it a little bit better, but the reality is it will not let the industry fix the structural issues and problems that are part of coastal shipping in Australia today.

We have an ageing fleet that is simply not being replenished. In 2013, 49 per cent of the ships in the world fleet were under 15 years of age and 79 per cent of the world's gross tonnage was carried on ships under 15 years of age. In contrast, the average age of Australian ships in the major trading fleet, and operating under a general licence, is 23 years. As these ships get older, they get less efficient; they break down more and the cost to insure them goes up. This is why we have seen operators in Australia progressively retiring their vessels over the years and not replacing them.

I am really disappointed, though, because there is no member for Franklin and no member for Denison here to defend the indefensible. Perhaps it is understandable. Unlike the last time I brought a motion here about the disastrous coastal shipping regulations that were brought in by the previous government, there is no sign of them here today. They are getting other people to do their bidding. To defend the indefensible in the case of Tasmania is simply unsustainable.

In 2012, the changes that were made absolutely hurt our state of Tasmania. As the member for Bass highlighted, the manufacturing industry in Tasmania was devastated as a result of that. The costs went up and they hurt our state. We lost our international shipping service—the AAA service that used to run Bell Bay-Brisbane-Singapore. Those changes hurt our state. All of that was then pushed onto Bass Strait. Thank heavens this government has listened: we have brought in $202.9 million over the next four years to expand the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme.

But we should not lose sight of the fact that we need to continue to work to drive down the costs of shipping on Bass Strait. This is not an endgame for us—this is our state's lifeline. I understand the MUA—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do understand, and I do appreciate, that there are workers on ships who are feeling concerned about their jobs. But the rationale does not stack up. When you take one job here, on an Australian flagged coastal vessel, and it costs four jobs in another unionised workplace—whether that be at Bell Bay or at Norske Skog in my electorate—this is the conundrum all around Australia.

Honourable members interjecting—

I do have some sympathy, but the reality is we have to deal with the facts. The facts are that we have an ageing shipping fleet in Australia, it is not being replenished, and this is vital not only to my state of Tasmania, it is vital to our nation. Yes, we can tinker around the edges—

Honourable members interjecting—

I do have some sympathy but the arguments that are being used on the other side simply do not stack up to scrutiny, when you are brutally honest about it. The claims around wages simply do not stack up. There is '$2 a day' and these sorts of claims—they simply do not stack up.

Eighty per cent of global tonnage is carried under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, to which Australia is a signatory. Sixty-four of the international labour organisations are members of that. The safety net of standards that applies to employment applies to over 1½ million seafarers. The dead-weight tonnage on Australian flagged ships has fallen by 64 per cent since the member for Grayndler introduced this legislation in 2012. That is the tragedy. I cannot stand here in good faith and not condemn what has been a disaster for our state, as the representative of a large part of the island state; and I advocate very strongly for change.

I support the contribution made by the member for Bass. He is right: the system is broken. The costs on Bass Strait went up enormously since 2012. We are doing substantial work, with a $203 million contribution over four years to assist the Freight Equalisation Scheme. We are assisting with free trade agreements and other measures, but to get goods to the market we need vessels that are cost competitive.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support this resolution that has been moved by the member for Newcastle. I do so as someone who understands that, as an island continent, Australia depends upon Australian shipping. More than 99 per cent of our exports and imports are moved by sea. Our starting point is that it is in Australia's national interest to have an Australian shipping industry. It is in our economic interest, in our environmental interest and in our national security interest. That is why we brought in a comprehensive plan of reforms—not a protectionist model that occurs in a place like the United States, where ships not only have to be US owned and operated to operate around their coast but have to be built in the United States as well. We did not go down that sea. What we did was make sure that there could be competition in terms of accessing the blue highway.

We should allow these reforms to have an opportunity to work, because they were comprehensive. They went to employment and training, they went to providing tax breaks and they went to ensuring that people moving domestic freight around our coast seek an Australian flagged vessel in the first instance. But there would be a permit system to allow foreign flagged vessels around our coast if an Australian operator was not able to undertake that task. So it is a flexible system but one that operates in the interests of the nation.

Those opposite simply want to introduce Work Choices on water. They are so obsessed by the Maritime Union of Australia they never mentioned the Australian companies that run the shipping industry here. It is all about the workers. If you move freight by road, the truck driver must be paid Australian wages and conditions and the truck must satisfy Australian standards. If you move freight by rail, the people who work in the rail network are paid under Australian wages and conditions. There is no reason whatsoever for any different arrangements to operate on the blue highway. For those who speak about border security, the idea that people on a Liberian flagged carrier can operate, not complying with environmental conditions, certainly renders us vulnerable compared with the control that is there in the Australian system.

When it comes to Tasmania, the Tory state Premier of Tasmania got elected on a promise of funding an international ship from Tasmania to take exports to Asia. That is what they said they would do and they have now dropped that and instead made changes to TFES at a cost to the taxpayer. That is the reality. They committed a fraud upon the voters of Tasmania by pretending that government, not the market, could determine the operation of shipping from Tasmania. What they know, and operators know, is that the increase in costs for Tasmanian shipping is due to the increase in port charges that occurred in the Port of Melbourne under the Napthine government. That was the big increase in costs.

When it comes to an Australian ship, there is a total staff of 15 that operate a container ship. The difference in labour costs is minimal. The member for Lyons says it was a minuscule charge. That was before the businesses who operate out of the Port of Melbourne recently saw an 800 per cent increase proposed. And they say it is miniscule!

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And he says 'one stevedore'. How many stevedores do you think they have? When you look at the detail of their proposal, you see they have not done any work. It comes down to ideology; it comes down to Work Choices on water. Like their crazy proposal for open skies in northern Australia, it should be rejected.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be put. Would the member for Lyons like to have another go?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member for Lyons has had a go, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he cannot.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even by leave?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. Leave is not granted.

An honourable member interjecting—

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no need for that, thank you.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to support the motion by the member for Newcastle and congratulate her on a fantastic contribution to the debate, a contribution based on factual information and a great understanding of the shipping industry. I also note that my colleague the member for Charlton is in the chamber. He is also very supportive of the shipping industry and knows and understands how important it is to Australia as a nation. It is really very pleasing to follow the member for Grayndler because what he does not know about shipping is not worth knowing. He has made a long-term commitment to ensuring that we have a vibrant, viable shipping industry in this country. He recognises that Australia is an island nation. He recognises the importance of shipping for transporting goods around and from Australia. He also recognises the onshore industries which complement the shipping industry.

There has been a long battle in this parliament in relation to shipping. The previous Liberal government introduced the flags of convenience and supported foreign ships travelling around Australia, taking Australian goods from one port to another on foreign flag vessels with crews from different countries. Quite often the crews were living in appalling conditions on those ships. They had no rights. When my predecessor, Peter Morris, was a member in this House, he chaired the transport committee inquiry into the ships of shame. How any member on that side of parliament could be arguing for the types of conditions that existed on those ships of shame to be introduced to Australian ships is beyond my belief.

It is interesting that we have had only Tasmanians speak on shipping. It seems for the government that shipping is only important to Australia if you are Tasmanian. I heard the member for Bass talking about Tasmania being an island state. Australia, I remind members, is an island nation and shipping is vitally important to our nation. I understand the government consulted with shipowners but they consulted the wrong ones. They consulted the shipowners who represent foreign interests; they did not speak to the Australian based organisation, the Marine Industry Australia Ltd, because they oppose the changes the minister is talking about introducing, changes that will lead to Third World working conditions for Australian seamen and to an increase in the flags of convenience. We will go back to the old permit system which did not serve the Australian industry well. It is really about introducing Work Choices on the water.

We know that this government are all slaves to Work Choices. All the time they are looking at some way they can bring back Work Choices. Here is an attempt to bring back Work Choices. It is all about having a shipping industry that has no regulation, where tax avoidance is ripe and where there are low labour standards. They oppose the changes that were introduced by the member for Grayndler when he was minister. They have just been biding their time. It is driven by their philosophy and ideological hatred for the MUA. Every time they get an opportunity, that hatred rises to the surface. They do not look at what is good for Australia; they look at what is good for themselves.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to echo the fine remarks from the members for Newcastle, Shortland, Fremantle and Grayndler. This really is a substantive issue for our nation. Plenty of people have been talking about how we are an island nation and we need to pay due deference to the need of an island nation to have a strong maritime industry, including in ship construction. We are having that debate right now with the government's disgraceful breach of its promise to build submarines in this country. We are seeing the impact of that running down capability right now in my home region of the Hunter. The excellent member for Newcastle talked about that at Tomago with Forgacs. It has gone from 900 highly skilled workers to between 150 and 200. That is a great loss of capacity in this nation. We are also seeing this in ship design and development and in transport in our maritime industry as a whole.

As the member for Grayndler, who was a most excellent minister for transport, discussed earlier, there is a great opportunity to have Australian-run shipping lines transporting around this nation. He was an excellent minister for transport, building on another excellent minister for transport, our very own Peter Morris, the former member for Shortland, who did so much for Australian shipping and through the 'ships of shame' inquiry in earlier times.

It is really concerning when we hear those on the other side conflate separate issues. They conflate cartage costs that have gone up due to quite outrageous monopoly rents being extracted by the Port of Melbourne with these very important reforms. These reforms ask, 'If it is okay to have Australians driving the trucks that transport the ingots of aluminium from Bell Bay to the docks, why isn't it okay to have Australian workers on the ships that transport those ingots of aluminium?' That is a really fundamentally important principle.

People accuse us of using a glib phrase with 'Work Choices on water', but it gets to the heart of the matter here. Those on the other side do not really concern themselves about the exploitation of workers. They say some important things, but they need to match that rhetoric with actions. On this issue, on the bill and on everything else around this debate, they have failed. They will continue to fail.

The member for Lyons confesses an interest in workers. He is absolutely right: we need to be very cognisant of the interests of the workers in his home state versus the interests of the workers on the water. But attacking one worker's rights to promote the economic interests of another worker is in no-one's interests. That is a race to the bottom. If you accept that it is okay to undercut Australian workers on ships and for them to have Third World rates of pay and conditions, the next argument is to have them in those workplaces at Bell Bay, at Norske Skog and at these really important manufacturing facilities. It is a fundamental point of human rights that all human rights are inviolate. If you run down some people's human rights to support others, it is a race to the bottom and it will end in tears.

It is really important that we are having this debate right now because Four Corners tonight on ABC will be investigating some very disturbing actions that occurred aboard a ship that docked in my home port, the Port of Newcastle, which is also the home port of the members for Newcastle and Shortland. We were all very disturbed by what occurred upon that ship.

Ultimately the workers on that ship were relying on the intervention of the MUA, a union that has a great internationalist tradition and a great internationalist orientation to support workers around the world. It knows that the best way of supporting these workers is to ensure fair working conditions on Australian ships. That is why I am proud to say that I am a great supporter of the MUA, and the MUA has been supportive of me in the past. It is a great union that really is part of the social fabric of this country.

The agenda of those on the other side is really to destroy the MUA, just as in 1998 Peter Reith and John Howard conspired to make an entire workforce redundant purely because they were members of a union, in order to destroy a union. Those opposite know that if they attack the MUA and the CFMEU mining division, two great, stalwart unions in our region, they can destroy organised labour in this country and really run down the capacity of progressive forces to run an opposition to their reactionary cause.

So this is a really important issue, and the choice is clear. The choice is between supporting wages and conditions of Australian workers and running them down in response to Third World conditions. So I am proud to support the member for Newcastle's motion, and I do that very proudly.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is still an opportunity for one more speaker. Are you seeking leave, Member for Lyons?

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would seek leave.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Madam Deputy Speaker, leave is not granted. If they could not find more than two speakers on this motion, I do not think we are in a position to grant leave.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Charlton. I find that somewhat churlish, seeing as we have given that benefit to your side many times this year.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we granted leave in the very previous debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they didn't.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we granted leave.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we have 15 minutes and one speaker, and you are not granting leave.

Mr Hutchinson interjecting—

So leave is not granted—very disappointing.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there no other speakers?

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are clearly not here, are they? The mover of the motion is shutting down debate. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:17 to 16:00