Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was speaking on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill and pointing out some of the fatal flaws in Labor's legislation and the consequences of them and the need for the reform currently before the chamber. One of the examples I will use to highlight the reason for the change suggested in this legislation is that since Labor introduced these changes, which we are seeking to wind back, there has been—listen to this figure—a 63 per cent reduction in the dead weight tonnage or capacity of major Australian flag vessels with coastal licences. That 63 per cent decrease occurred between 200-12 and 2013-14. Further, around 1,000 extra administration hours per year are required for the industry to meet the red tape of the scheme.

Under the Labor legislation, the fleet of major Australians registered ships over 2,000 dead weight tonnes with coast licences plummeted from 30 vessels in 2006-07 to just 15 in 2013-14. Do we need any more proof that this legislation, which Labor foisted upon this place curtesy of the Green-Labor majority in the Senate, has failed and failed dismally. There is further evidence. The number of ships on Australian transitional general licences has dropped from 16 to just eight. Then before the Senate committee, the Maritime Union of Australia had the audacity to put in their submission that there could be a $4.25 billion benefit to the economy if there were 100 ships on the Australian International Shipping Register. Chances are they are right, but do you know what? There ain't 100 ships on the Australian International Shipping Register, nor are there 50, nor are there 20, nor are there 10 or five, four, three, two or one. It is zero, absolute zero, and that is yet again proof positive as to the failure of Labor's legislation.

Further, between 2000 and 2012, shipping's share of Australian freight fell from 27 per cent to just 17 per cent, while the volume of freight across Australia actually grew by 57 per cent. Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent come 2030, but coastal shipping will only increase by 15 per cent. So who and what are carrying this freight task for our nation? The trucks up and down the Pacific Highway and across the Nullarbor, putting extra wear and tear on our roads, with issues of road safety and extra fuel consumption. You name it, it is a loss loss in every respect, other than that coastal shipping is now so expensive that it is cheaper to use trucks rather than ships.

Under any analysis, Labor's reforms have failed coastal shipping and, unless we act now, workers whose jobs rely on coastal shipping will be sunk. Without changes to economic and regulatory settings, shipping will not be able to deliver the competitive efficient services that Australian businesses need to provide the jobs we need. In short, Labor's policy has failed and failed dismally.

A few examples of the hindrance of the current red tape: the current system requires foreign vessels to apply for a minimum of five voyages before a temporary licence can be granted, hindering the ability of one-off movements of cargo by coastal shipping. For example, a piece of heavy machinery was unable to be shipped as a single voyage and therefore a temporary licence could not be granted. The machinery was therefore moved by road, which required a police escort, due to the oversized load, and removal of overhead power lines. This was more complicated and costly than a voyage by ship but the red tape stopped it. Also, there are certain products, like LPG, which are moved exclusively by foreign ships operating under temporary licences. Get this: even though there are no Australian ships capable of carrying the products, they still have to obtain a licence. What on earth is this licencing protecting when there are no Australian ships capable of undertaking the task? These are just a number of the examples that I can point to showing where the Maritime Union of Australia foisted a policy position on the Labor-Greens government that we are still labouring under today and that is costing jobs.

Around 90,000 Australians are employed in the manufacturing sector that uses coastal shipping, including oil refining, cement, steel and aluminium. The Labor-Greens government tried to kill all these sectors with the carbon tax and it seems that, just in case the carbon tax would not kill them, they implemented this coastal shipping policy to secure the demise of these industries. The coalition will not stand for it. The coalition will do everything it can to ensure that these industries are viable and can employ our fellow Australians. Australian businesses are paying rates that can be up to double the rate offered by foreign ships, adding tens of millions of dollars to their cost base, making their operations less viable as a result and therefore making Australian jobs less secure.

There has been the suggestion that somehow we would see lesser conditions for seafarers. I simply say that the new legislation currently before us has built-in protections for Australian workers and also for wages and conditions for all seafarers on foreign ships operating primarily in the Australian coastal trade. This legislation is a test, especially for my fellow senators from Tasmania. In Tasmania we have a proposal from DP World to create a $20 million to $30 million international shipping terminal at Burnie. What does it require? It requires this legislation to be carried by the Senate. If that happens, an international shipping service will be restored to Tasmania. That allows our product to hit international markets without having to go across Bass Strait and be transshipped to Port Phillip—something which more than doubles the cost of getting the product to international markets. This would be a great infrastructure win for the seat of Braddon and for the city of Burnie, which I note is Senator Lambie's home city. It would be a great boost to the construction sector, it would provide 40 permanent jobs as an international shipping terminal and it would also ensure that Tasmanian on-land production could get its produce to the rest of the world a lot more cheaply.

This would see substantial private sector investment. It would see our product getting to market so much more cheaply. In a competitive world, every single extra dollar of shipping will prejudice our produce on world markets. DP World believe that they could reduce the containerised freight costs to key destinations by over 40 per cent. That is a substantial reduction in the freight cost. It makes our products cheaper on world markets, it makes Tasmanian production more viable and, as a result, it increases the opportunities for Tasmanian employment. Every single Tasmanian senator is surely duty-bound to ensure that they create whatever possibility there is for the creation of Tasmanian jobs. The Burnie port would be a viable port because it has the capacity to export more containers than the ports of Adelaide or, in New Zealand, the ports of Lyttelton, Napier and Otago. All of those ports have dedicated international container terminals, and for Tasmania to be able to get something of this nature would be a great fillip to our economy, a great boost to employment opportunities. All it hinges on is Senator Lambie and the Labor and Greens senators from Tasmania voting with the government to allow this wonderful international terminal to be created, providing an immediate boost and also the ongoing boost to our production all around the state of Tasmania.

We can hear from the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, who tells us: 'Launceston and Northern Tasmania has suffered considerably from increased costs and timeliness for exports and imports of freight as a result of Labor's coastal shipping legislation.' We have heard Bell Bay Aluminium telling us the need for the changes that are currently before us. Incitec Pivot Ltd has said:

Deregulation of coastal shipping is needed to lift the competitiveness of the sector, reduce costs on business, increase flexibility and support opportunities for new investment and employment in Australian manufacturing.

The AI Group, the Minerals Council of Australia—you name it. They have pointed out the need for this change. Indeed, it is cheaper to import sugar from Thailand to Melbourne than to pay the freight task from Bundaberg to Melbourne, and you wonder why sugar farmers in the state of Queensland are doing it tough. When people come into this place and talk about jobs on the water, think about the jobs on the land that are being prejudiced and the extra costs being incurred. Cristal Mining in Western Australia, said:

We need to stop insisting on a highly regulated, costly and inefficient protectionist environment to attempt to preserve a declining coastal shipping industry because all the other Australian industries dependent on coastal freight are being disadvantaged.

This is the cost here in this equation. The Labor Party and the Greens are maniacally defending the rorts of the MUA and the extra costs associated with that which are prejudicing the jobs of thousands of Australians right around this great country.

I fully support the legislation. This is so good for our nation, in particular it is vitally important for my home state of Tasmania and a very, very exciting prospect for the city of Burnie, which is the home city of Senator Lambie. It is about time that she actually took the time to have a look at the consequences of some of her statements and her votes in this place rather than her ongoing articulation of propositions that have no basis in fact. We need jobs in Tasmania and a vote on this legislation will deliver exactly that.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge a number of the points made by Senator Abetz in his eloquent contribution in favour of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. He talks about issues of inefficiencies, rorts and matters that must be attended to. But I cannot support this bill because it will have a very counterproductive effective in respect of Australian shipping. It purports to strengthen Australian shipping, but it will do the opposite. It will deskill our Australian shipping workforce. It will basically gut Australian shipping. On what argument do I rely? On what basis do I say this? Is it the MUA? Is it others who say that this is not worth doing, that it is too risky to do? No. And this is not a prop, so I will not get into trouble with you, Acting Deputy President Williams. This is the government's own explanatory memorandum of the bill. It is a thing called a RIS, not risible, a regulatory impact statement—and it does make me risible reading this, though. It states:

Many of the operators currently operating under the Australian General Register would likely re-flag their vessels in order to compete with the foreign operators who enjoy the benefit of comparatively lower wage rates. Australian seafarer jobs would be adversely affected as Australian operators re-flag from the Australian General Register.

It goes on:

Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers (paid under EA rates) with foreign seafarers (paid under ITF rates)—

in other words, lower rates. The government's own regulatory impact statement in the explanatory memorandum explains it all.

This will kill Australian jobs. This will destroy Australian jobs in the shipping industry. I acknowledge there is work to do. I acknowledge the genuineness and the concern of the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister involved, who says that we need to be more efficient. I acknowledge that. But this is not the way to do it. You do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. You do not just get rid of, effectively, the Australian shipping industry because it will gut Australian shipping. There will be no chance to get it back. There will be foreign flagged vessels with no real Australian workforce.

I acknowledge there are issues with the current licencing system for coastal shipping. This bill is not the way to overcome these issues. Inefficiencies in the licencing system cannot be rectified at the expense of mass Australian job losses. If the MUA is not efficient, if the MUA is not doing the right thing, if there are rorts involved then let's tackle those head-on. This bill will destroy Australian jobs.

This bill removes three key objectives from the coastal shipping act that make specific reference to long-term growth, efficiency and reliability of the Australian shipping. So it is actually removing those key elements from the act—growth, efficiency and reliability. These worrying omissions have set the scene for what could turn out to be a nightmare for Australian seafarers and Australian jobs.

The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to abolish the four permits currently available to all ships and replace them with a single permit. The result of this change will be to level the playing the field, so-called, between Australian and foreign flagged ships. But we know there is no level playing field. You cannot compete with—what did Senator Rice say they get? Was it $2 an hour? It is like those two-dollar shops; those two-dollar ads.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Reject Shop.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, this bill does not even belong in The Reject Shop. The bill's own regulatory impact statement makes the point that this will cost jobs. The story of Bill Milby from North Star Cruises struck a chord with the Australian public. North Star Cruises operates luxury passenger cruises along the Kimberley Coast. On 7 September this year, Mr Milby gave powerful evidence to the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill. I would like to read out a portion of his evidence now. He said:

I cannot emphasise enough the difficulty Australian tour and expedition passenger ships will have in competing with foreign ships—foreign ships with a lower cost base that is brought about because they employ a foreign crew that is paid a much lower wage base than our Australian crew. I do not resile from the comments that I made in the submission. That is why I have no amendments. In particular, the comments regarding the advice that was given to me—the suggestion as to how we could survive if foreign cruise ships were allowed to compete directly against us. That suggested advice was that we re-flag True North, which is an Australian-flag ship—in other words, take it away to some country of convenience for flag of convenience, re-flag it, lay off our Australian crew apart from the two designated senior people that we have to have under the legislation, put on a foreign crew and bring it back. That was how we could compete with the foreign ships that would come down and operate on our coastline. First of all, I was dumbfounded that that was actually being suggested by a government department. I asked at that time why we should have to do this. The answer given was, 'Because we are in an international market, so we have to be internationally competitive.' I am still speechless about it; I really am.

Mr Milby is not the only one who is speechless. I thought the government was genuinely about building jobs not destroying them with a piece of legislation such as this.

This bill is not the tool we need to strengthen Australian shipping. There are improvements that can be made to the industry, and I hope the government will work constructively with non-government senators—with the opposition and the crossbench. I acknowledge we need to have reforms in Australian shipping, but this is not the way. What killed this bill off for me was the government's own explanatory memorandum at page 156. This bill will be completely counterproductive.

But I acknowledge some of the real concerns. Incitec Pivot Ltd, IPL, is a great company that, sadly, has recently had to invest in one of its plants overseas because it felt the investment environment here was not good enough. So I acknowledge the problems it has. Incitec Pivot is a great company that employs many, many Australians. In its submission to the inquiry, it gave an example of the inflexibility of the current permit system. This year IPL chartered a ship to carry fertiliser from its manufacturing plant in Brisbane to its distribution centres in Geelong and Adelaide. However, in the time that the licence was applied for and then approved and the ship chartered, demand for the fertiliser had increased in Geelong. The conditions on the permit would not allow the ship to unload more than an extra 400 tonnes of fertiliser, despite the fertiliser being available and the ship capable of offloading it. As a result, Incitec Pivot Ltd had to transport the fertiliser to Adelaide, where it was then placed on 40—four-zero—B-double trucks to be driven to Geelong. The cost of this exercise was an additional $75,000 to Incitec Pivot Ltd. That is crazy. It is wrong, and I understand why the government wants to reform that. We need to have a more flexible permit system.

So clearly the rigidity of the permit system is causing issues for Australian business that must be redressed, but this bill is not the way to do it. It goes too far. When you have government departments telling Mr Milby, 'Get rid of your workforce, because that's how the world works,' I do not accept that. That is not the attitude that the Australian government should have when it comes to Australian jobs. Something has to change, but this is not the bill to change it. It cannot come at the expense of mass lay-offs of Australian jobs, nor can the cost savings.

I spoke earlier about the concerning statements in the regulatory impact statement of this bill, and there is another section that raises a red flag to me. That is the finding that, of the $21.4 million of projected savings arising from this bill, approximately $19 million will come from savings in labour costs—in other words, laying off Australian workers. That is $19 million in wages being ripped away from the pockets of Australian workers—Australian seafarers—and the families they support.

The impact these reforms will have on land transport must also be acknowledged. The Freight on Rail Group expressed concerns about the unfair competitive advantage that the proposed reforms would give to foreign ships over Australian-owned modes of transport. Where is Senator Sterle when I need him? He knows a thing or two about the trucking industry. There he is! He is right there. He has joined the Greens, has he? I am not sure if the Greens would welcome Senator Sterle. He has caused them a lot of grief. This would result in a reduction in market share of rail freight movements for long-haul journeys. The rail transport industry relies heavily on economies of scale in order to maintain a competitive presence. With a shift in demand from transport by rail to transport by sea, there will be flow-on effects in this industry and the families it supports also.

So this has not been thought through. I understand what the Hon. Mr Truss is trying to do. He is worried about competitiveness. He wants to ensure that this permit system, which needs to be overhauled, is no longer an unnecessary impediment. But what the government is proposing to do would have adverse impacts on road and rail as well, with job consequences from that, and that is something that I think Senator Sterle is deeply concerned about.

Australian coastal shipping does need reform, but when you have Australian shipowners saying, 'We don't want these reforms,' but those shipowners who are effectively representing foreign-owned vessels saying they want the reform, you know there is a problem. When Australian shipowners have a problem with this legislation, we should have a problem with it as well.

I encourage Minister Truss to continue consulting with industry, with workers and with people like Incitec Pivot. We need to get reforms through. I met with former Minister Albanese in relation to this. He has given me his undertaking—and I hope he does not mind my saying so—that he is willing to sit down constructively with the government to work through these issues and get a solution so that we can have an improved system in place and get rid of those anomalies which meant Incitec Pivot had to spend $75,000 unnecessarily and stupidly because of a permit system that is not working. But when the regulatory impact statement says this is going to kill off Australian jobs, in effect, and when the government's own explanatory memorandum spells it out in black and white, in good conscience I cannot and will not support this bill.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the chance this evening to make some brief comments on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, because it is a piece of legislation that is absolutely imperative to improving economic efficiency not just with coastal shipping around Australia but, dare I say, in the state of Tasmania. Why do we need to do this? Because the 'reforms'—and I use that term advisedly—put in place by the former Labor government had nothing to do with improving economic performance and everything to do with keeping some of their political mates very happy. This government recognises the urgent need to maintain efficient and reliable coastal shipping services as part of the national transport system. How do we know that this legislation is needed? Because industry has clearly said so. I have a number of quotes, so bear with me. I would like to quote first from the Australian Industry Group, which has said:

The Bill, by increasing flexibility in the coastal shipping trade, will provide important economic benefits to the Australian economy and allow for greater movement of Australian domestic cargo, including in parts of Australia where shipping transport is particularly vital, such as Tasmania.

Let me say, as a Senator representing a state that has over many years sent a great deal of our own money Tasmania's way through the GST distribution arrangements, that I think anything that helps Tasmania build its economic capacity is unambiguously good news for Tasmanian taxpayers and, dare I say, Western Australian taxpayers as well. You would hope, of course, that Labor senators would also think along those lines, but that is a little bit too much to expect in this particular debate.

While on the subject of Western Australia, a state for which minerals and resources are absolutely vital, I think it is also worth noting what the Minerals Council of Australia had to say in regard to this particular piece of legislation. It clearly set out the key problem with Labor's so-called shipping reform, noting:

Restricting competition in Australia's coastal shipping industry has increased domestic transport and administration costs and made it more difficult to source coastal shipping services when they are needed.

This is a particularly important point. I am not sure whether or not Senator Xenophon and others have represented the regulatory impact statement correctly. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. But, when they talk about jobs in one industry, the shipping industry, what they do not talk about is exactly these economic benefits that arise from a more competitive coastal shipping industry. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. If the regulatory impact statement does say what they say it says, that may be true, but what they do not then talk about is the benefits to other jobs in other industries that arise because you get a more competitive coastal shipping industry with reduced costs. That is the link that Senator Xenophon has not made and I think it is important to make. Indeed, that is the link that I heard some Labor senators talking about earlier today when we were having this debate.

The Minerals Council went on to use one company to demonstrate this particular point, talking about how freight charges had increased for one particular company by $3,000 a day. I am not sure why the Labor Party think that imposing cost increases like that on employers is going to help workers in other industries or to boost employment growth more generally.

If we go to agriculture, another sector that is crucial to Western Australia's economy and our export industries, what is the view of the National Farmers' Federation on the changes that Labor introduced? The National Farmers' Federation said:

… there is no evidence that the—

then current—

legislation has had any 'revitalising' effect on either Australian shipping or the broader economy. … The cost of shipping goods by sea has increased and there is a perception that the Australian coastal trade is all but closed to foreign ships, with a resulting reduction in access to freight services.

This means that the lack of competition in Australia's coastal shipping services means that other industries are paying a high price for that lack of competition and the poor access to freight services. It is not in the interests of this nation for a perception to exist that our coastal trade is closed for business. That is not good for Tasmania. It is not good for any of the Australian states.

The farcical nature of the reforms that the former Labor government introduced is not hard to demonstrate. In many respects, it reminds me of the mining tax Labor introduced, which hit Western Australia harder than any other jurisdiction. As we recall now, Labor introduced a mining tax that imposed huge compliance costs on those involved in the mining sector, which pushed up business costs, yet the tax raised barely any revenue. It was one of the greatest disasters of public policy that this country has ever witnessed.

In much the same vein, the former Labor government introduced an Australian International Shipping Register. Colleagues might be interested to know how many ships were registered on the Australian International Shipping Register. How many?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, how many?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds might like to pick a number out of the air. Ten? 'Was it 10, Senator Smith?' No, it was not 10, Senator Reynolds. Was it nine? No, it was not nine. Was it eight? No, it was not eight. Was it seven? It was not seven. Was it six? It was not six. Was it five? It was not five. It was not four. It was not three. It was not two. It was not even one. No ship was registered on the Australian International Shipping Register. It is the catastrophe of the mining tax by another name. It is another piece of burdensome Labor Party regulation that has driven up business costs and failed to deliver on its anticipated outcomes.

Let us ask ourselves: why has it failed? Again, we need to go to Labor's motives on this particular issue. The plain truth is that the so-called reforms introduced by Labor were pretty much a wholesale capitulation to Labor's political mates in the Maritime Union of Australia—no surprises there. We all know, of course, that the MUA have fallen on particularly hard times. Their chant may well be, 'MUA, here to stay,' but, as we are all aware, they are now in merger talks with the CFMEU to form a militant superunion.

There was further evidence recently of the MUA's desperation in Western Australia, when that union spent a not inconsiderable amount of time—and, dare I say, members' money—pursuing a coverage application before the Fair Work Commission. Their argument was that the employees of a logistics company who prepared for delivery in the offshore oil and gas industry should be ruled to be 'waterside workers'. That is a very long bow to draw. That is a very, very long bow to draw, and I will just demonstrate what I mean. There are workers at storage and logistics facilities located a considerable distance from wharves or from the water, and the MUA have been trying to argue that they should have the right to cover these workers. As the Fair Work Commissioner rightly noted in dismissing the application:

To disturb the plain meaning of "waterside worker" would be to characterise work performed, in any location, which ultimately results in goods or materials being loaded onto a ship as the work of a "waterside worker".

Plainly, that would be a ridiculous situation, yet such is the desperation of a union movement that is losing its relevance by the day.

This legislation is about getting the balance right. It is about recognising that laws governing our shipping network need to promote economic efficiency. They need to genuinely protect workers—and Senator Abetz mentioned that in his contribution—and of course they need to actually promote economic opportunity and job creation for Australians. Our laws should not be used to try to create political and organisational advantage for particular unions. That is not their role.

I think some people have misunderstood the full impact on jobs and on industries associated with coastal shipping and have underestimated the significant growth to jobs and the economic opportunity that arise from a more competitive coastal shipping arrangement. They have misunderstood what the regulatory impact statement has been trying to say, but for the sake of this debate I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I will keep my contributions short. For me the merits of this particular piece of legislation are clear and obvious. Economic reform is important. It is certainly in the interests of Tasmania. It is in the interests of Western Australia. The Harper review in its own way will make a considerable contribution to competition and productivity in our country over time, but, with regard to this particular issue, this is a necessary and very worthy piece of economic reform and should be embraced, most particularly by Labor senators from Tasmania.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. To an outsider, Australian shipping laws can be very complex and daunting. However, this government legislation boils down to one simple question: do the Australian people want an Australian shipping industry? If the answer is yes then this legislation must be strongly rejected, because, if this Liberal National Party legislation passes this Senate, the Australian shipping industry will be killed and thousands of direct and indirect Australian jobs will be destroyed in the process. I will not stand by and allow this government to betray the Australian people and future generations in such a reckless and treasonous manner.

The government's official summary of the act reads:

Amends: the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 to: rename the Act as the Coastal Shipping Act 2015; replace the existing three tiered licensing system with a single permit system, available to Australian and foreign vessels, which will provide access to the Australian coast for a period of 12 months; and establish a framework of entitlements for seafarers on foreign vessels engaging or intending to engage in coastal shipping for more than 183 days; the Shipping Registration Act 1981 to allow vessels to be registered on the Australian International Shipping Register when they engage in international shipping for 90 days or more; and four Acts to make consequential amendments. Also repeals the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2012.

This legislation effectively takes away any protection that Australian shipowners and maritime workers had against unfair, heavily subsidised, monopolised competition from cheap overseas vessels and cheap overseas maritime workers.

This legislation means that members of the Liberal and National parties are prepared to sacrifice Australian maritime jobs and national shipping security on the altar of free market economics when the opposite of a free market exists in shipping. However, there are many countries around the world who are prepared to acknowledge reality and protect their nation's merchant marine, maritime workers' jobs and skills, because they know history shows that their nations become less safe in times of world conflict. If we place ourselves at the mercy of foreign shipping and seafarers in times of world conflict, what happens to our supply chain security? What happens to the security, safety and reliability of (1) fuel and oil, (2) containerised goods, (3) dry bulk stores such as coal and iron ore and, of course, passenger cruise liners once we lose the maritime skills, personnel and ships to act in Australia's national interest at all times? If you listen to those irresponsible Nationals and Liberal Party members of this place, we should vote for their legislation and adopt their 'she'll be right' attitude in response to the multiple threats to world peace and Australia's national security and interests.

Are those threats real? Let me briefly remind the Senate of a few facts that some opposite are trying to bury. For the first time in history, we have armed guards with machine guns patrolling the perimeter of Parliament House after religious psychopaths declared war on us because we do not want to accept their religion and law and prefer to live in a secular, free, democratic society. Today, most Australians—as a matter of fact, three out of four people—believe we will suffer a Paris-style terrorist attack. The Chinese government, when it is not scaring the hell out of its near neighbours with over the top military parades, is implicitly threatening to kill our sailors as they support our allies in freedom-of-navigation exercises in international waters. The US President and security advisers have warned our Prime Minister and senior Defence officials about the dangers of selling vital civil infrastructure like our ports to the Chinese companies which, of course, are closely linked to the Chinese military, who are threatening to kill our sailors while they act peacefully and within international laws. A sitting royal commissioner, Commissioner Heydon, has told us that he discovered a grave threat— (Time expired)