Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Indeed. If you are into this particular area, you would be well aware that it is under constant review. You are probably not aware, Senator, but effectively those opposite in this place have prevented the implementation of what is widely known in the industry as the 500-tonne rule. If those opposite decided to play the game on single voyage permits, particularly for domestic operators who were forced by your reluctance to accept some principal changes to this act like the 500-tonne rule, we would all be a lot better off.

You said the single voyage permit is somehow used to take jobs away from Australian workers. I have listened to a lot of rhetoric from the MUA over the years. You paint a picture of these ships that come over here as being substandard. Let me tell you: first of all, they come here on a SOLAS voyage. They have to meet MARPOL regulations. They are inspected by AMSA. It is easy to paint a picture of the rust bucket, things falling apart.

Let me tell you, Senator O’Brien, it is misleading to stand in this place and say, ‘We’re allowing these flag of convenience vessels. They’re going to sink here. They’re a risk to shipping.’ You need to be very careful about saying that because we are supposed to be educating the public about what we are doing in this place. You have to be very careful about those sorts of things, remembering that these are not flag of convenience vessels; these are vessels that are unlicensed in Australia. The implications that they are unregulated and unsafe are unsustainable.

Why do we use these vessels? We use these vessels principally, as you pointed out, Senator O’Brien, when a licensed Australian vessel is unavailable for that voyage. You will say, ‘Oh no, they’re available.’ But there is an implication regarding time. And what you did not say about the audit—and I understand that the audit was done at a time when there was a transfer to the transport office—is that the recommendations were acted on very quickly. And that is why we do audits. This government says, ‘We need to be transparent.’ It says, ‘We will not just say that we know what we are doing. We will give it to another organisation, we will take some recommendations and we will act on them.’ We acted on them quickly, because that is what this government is about—providing good government and ensuring that essential transportation processes are covered effectively by regulation to ensure that continued free trade, which is an essential part of keeping the economy going, is maintained.

It is not maintained in the way that Senator O’Brien has suggested—that we just let this sort of stuff fly through and that we have boats all over the place. Senator O’Brien, I suspect I have spent an awful lot more time at sea than you. I pass these vessels with quite some degree of safety and I can assure you that I am not concerned about things like being bumped by a ship in the middle of the night. If we look at history over the last 10 years—that is right, Senator, over the time this government has been in power—we find that one of the most notable events was that of the Sea Star. Whilst it is not covered in the amendments in the legislation being debated, immediately after that happened we went out and fixed it. And we continue to do that.

The whole presentation you made here today, Senator, on what I think is pretty uncontroversial legislation was pretty tragic. It is tragic because it misleads people. We are talking about maritime security; suddenly we are talking about terrorist threats and this country not taking them seriously. It is a pathetic misrepresentation of the facts. This country continues to assess terrorist threats. We are talking about precursors to explosives. In another life I was an explosives expert and I can tell you now, Senator, that ammonium nitrate in bulk is not used for explosives. It is actually used to grow things. I would have thought that you might have learnt about that in your previous shadow portfolio. People in Australia depend on ammonium nitrate to arrive in a timely fashion. If there is a gap in the transportation system and it cannot arrive, jobs and industry are not created and agriculture does not continue. In that event we need to act quickly, which we have done. We need to provide to the minister some flexibility to ensure that the minister can continue to provide some sort of licensing regime that comes under the scrutiny of AMSA.

AMSA is seen by the International Maritime Organisation to have the leading role regarding such legislation, particularly regarding the flexibility of the legislation, in that it continues to allow trade and ensures that the country, which I am very proud to say is Australia, is completely free of terrorist threats. On any complete assessment we are leading the world, Senator, in ensuring that we have maritime border security. If anybody questions that, perhaps they should saunter down to a wharf, because any movement around the seafront today would indicate immediately that there has been substantial change. Wherever you go on the waterfront now—thanks to this government’s hard work, continuous review and continuous introspection about getting it right—you will find substantive changes made over the last two years. They have accelerated and, now, if you are around the wharf, as you have indicated you have been, Senator O’Brien, you will see there are processes in place to identify exactly who you are and what you are doing. The implication that we allow ships in with people on them who we do not know, that we just let them in on boats that we have absolutely no control over, is an absolute furphy and is misleading.

In summing up, the senator opposite said that this is an issue of national security. As I have indicated, the amendments to both the Lighthouses Act and the Navigation Act are quite simple. They are not difficult concepts to grasp. It seems that those opposite have started off the year with a bit of a roar. This is the big issue: we have amendments to the Lighthouses Act which are ensuring that the penalties go up for stealing food out of the tin at the bottom of a lighthouse, so that when someone goes there who is in trouble, they can have a drink and a bit to eat while they wait to be rescued. That is serious stuff. But no—it is terrorism! It is not in the national interest to ensure we provide flexibility and a legislative framework so that essential items for our farmers and our industry right across this country are provided in a timely fashion.

With our wonderful economy, I know why you look sad, Senator O’Brien. It is because with such an economy and with a government that has its finger on the pulse, it must be pretty tragic sitting over there. But I think it is pretty sad when you come into this place and show your frustration in this manner. This is a place in which there are people listening. They want to be educated. They want a few facts on the plate. He says, ‘Jobs are at risk.’ Without these legislative changes, of course they will be at risk because they would be under the original system in which agricultural industries in this country were at the mercy of the MUA and other unions. Now we have a process whereby they have woken up to themselves around the waterfront. We have had waterfront reforms and now we are doing well and the economy is booming. So do not talk to me, Senator O’Brien, about this being about jobs.

The last thing I would like to ask is: did you hear Senator O’Brien talking about the environment? We have substantive legislative changes that involve the identification of a threat at sea. It is not only about a damaged ship; it may be a ship, for example, that has come from a port that we suspect has black-striped mussels. The changes now give us the capacity to act in our national interests to ensure that we can detain that ship, to ensure that it leaves and to ensure that it does not leave some little present behind that we do not want. This is significant. It is sad that you did not bring that up and share it with the parliament today, Senator O’Brien.

This is not a particularly controversial piece of legislation. We are not proposing any particularly radical changes. We are just tightening up shipping safety and pollution prevention regimes. I would hope that those on the other side who have seen this as an opportunity to effectively mislead Australia about what we are really doing would see fit to support this legislation. It is really important legislation in a whole range of ways. But most substantially, it allows for continued transportation in a system that effectively continues the mantra of the Australian government—seamless transfers of ships and men around Australia. It allows us to have a transportation system that ensures that those people who rely on it can get up every day and not have to worry about the ship not being there to transport their agricultural product or whatever other products they might be carrying. At the end of the day, those on the other side should support this legislation. I hope they do. I certainly hope that their performance in regard to non-controversial legislation in this place improves.