Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 7235 together:

(1)   Clause 28, page 23 (line 10), after “specify”, insert “, to the extent known,”.

(2)   Clause 28, page 23 (line 11), omit “, which must be 5 or more,”.

(3)   Clause 28, page 23 (line 17), omit “(if known)”.

(4)   Clause 28, page 23 (line 18), omit “(if known)”.

(5)   Clause 51, page 35 (line 1), after “specify”, insert “, to the extent known,”.

(6)   Clause 51, page 35 (line 2), omit “, which must be 5 or more,”.

(7)   Clause 51, page 35 (line 8), omit “(if known)”.

Obviously, what we wish to do with these amendments to the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 is make sure that we are more expedient in how the licensing provisions are dealt with. The current schedule 3 licensing arrangements, we feel, are cumbersome and are going to create a range of problems and impediments that have been spelt out. Some of those impediments can be seen in areas, for instance, where people have to have five voyages in 12 months. We are going to have people who basically say, 'I only need two; I need to get to five, so I'm going to have to try and work out how to get around that,' so we will have the contriving of ways to get up to a certain limit. The amendments omit the five-voyage minimum requirement. The amendment is to the fact that an application for a temporary licence must include at least five voyages in a 12-month period. One of the exposure drafts of the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012 set the minimum number of voyages at 10 in a 12-month period. As noted in the explanatory memorandum:

There was broad consensus from industry that many operators could not provide sufficient detail for ten voyages and that five voyages was more practical.

However, the same objections from industry that applied to the 10-voyage minimum threshold apply to the five-voyage threshold. Whist it is true that most industry participants that would be applying for a temporary licence to engage in five or more voyages per year is not the case for everyone, the bill in its present form would see that the smaller operators would be unable to comply with the new regulatory arrangements. There is almost universal agreement in the industry that this requirement should be removed. As Caltex notes in its submission to the House committee inquiry:

Implementing a minimum voyage requirement on TL—

that is, a temporary licence—

applications is not practical or reasonable. The requirement places unnecessary restrictions on shippers who undertake less than five voyages in a 12 month period and disadvantages these stakeholders whose trade is not likely to encourage investment on the coast due to their variable needs and low demand.

The prospect of temporary licence holders making up fictitious or spurious voyages to meet the five-voyage minimum is discussed in many of the submissions to the House and Senate inquiries into the legislation. The regulatory system is obviously deficient and clearly does not meet its objectives if, in order to comply, applicants are forced to make up fictitious voyages—which is what I mentioned at the start. Not only would this undermine the integrity of the system; it would waste industry and department time and resources in processing applications for voyages that will never occur.

Additionally, general licence holders who are given the option of objecting to a particular voyage listed in a temporary licence, if they are believed to be unable to take the cargo or passengers, may needlessly spend time objecting to voyages that a temporary licence holder has no intention of undertaking but is just using to make up the numbers and reach their five-voyage limit. Shipping Australia comments on the five-voyage limit in its submission, stating:

… the minimum of five voyages, which in our view, discriminates against the smaller coastal shipper who may, for example, have two or three voyages per year …

The department states in its supplementary submission to the House committee inquiry, in response to the industry's concerns about the five-voyage limit, that the vast majority of shippers undertake in excess of five voyages per year and so would qualify under the new temporary licence. However, they acknowledge:

For the small number of operators requiring fewer than five voyages, the new arrangements may require some reconsideration of their operating arrangements.

These small operators will no longer be able to operate in the Australian coastal trade without significantly changing their operations. Additionally, the five-voyage minimum will stifle the ability of start-up routes by new entrants into the market who are not on the Australian register. You will not be able to test a market and see whether there is a demand for a particular route if you are unable to commit to five voyages in a 12-month period. One such example of this is raised by Sucrogen in their submission to the House committee inquiry. They explain in their submission:

The bioethanol business was recently re-structured to provide only fuel grade ethanol into the Queensland market with industrial markets served by product imported to the Port of Melbourne.

Under recently changed market conditions, Sucrogen BioEthanol intends to restart closer to the transfers of ethanol from North Queensland to Melbourne rather than important it from overseas. One would suggest that this would probably be very good for the ethanol industry of North Queensland—and I am glad to see Senator Bernardi and Senator Cash are here to listen to this, because I know they have an intense interest in the good people of North Queensland; it is a shame that at the moment they are not sitting on our side of the chamber!