Senate debates

Monday, 18 June 2012

Bills

Shipping Reform (Tax Incentives) Bill 2012, Shipping Registration Amendment (Australian International Shipping Register) Bill 2012, Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012, Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012, Tax Laws Amendment (Shipping Reform) Bill 2012; In Committee

1:48 pm

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

It is not Phil or Buster who is going to help you here. The issue is this. It may be that you do not want to answer—after the issue of having to retract your statement on the position of the Australian Shipowners Association after it was quoted back to you. That is thanks to Ms Finlay who managed to dig it out. She is obviously a very capable lady. You have five staff here in the chamber. We have one. Now we have a position where you are accusing us of filibustering when really the way to get yourself out of this hole is to answer the question.

To answer the question is quite simple. We set down clear criteria at the start. We gave a little story to go with it so that there was no way you could be confused. We asked quite clearly, 'If they started the year and they needed three ships and then the wheat harvest came in and they needed seven and it was in the 12-month period, could they apply for a temporary licence?' You stood—looked straight across—and said the answer was yes. I was happy because we had just changed government policy. It took 20 minutes. You started off by saying, 'No, you could not,' and then you gave me the answer yes. I thought: 'Beauty. We'll go to the vote. That's it. Locked in. Job done.' Then there was panic, and in panic he said 'We'll go back and give the generic "Let's talk about the number five"'. Just like Sesame Street. This really was not an answer or a non-answer; it was a nothing.

Then you confirmed, Senator Carr, that the answer you gave was the right answer. And so we are happy again. It means that we can apply for a temporary licence midway through the year. We are happy again. But we are oscillating around—that was the fourth change in position. Now we are back to the statement about it having to be five. So now we are unhappy. We do not know whether we are happy or unhappy. We are totally and utterly confused. You really need to go back to the question that we asked you—that is clearly on the record—and give an answer to the scenario that we laid down. That encapsulates the question. It was quite clear. They start the year and only need three. They find out later it is going to be a busy year. The wheat harvest comes in. They are going to need seven and will therefore need a temporary licence. Can they get one: yes or no? The answer you gave was on the Hansard: 'Yes'. In fact, you said it again.

Now we have the position of the government saying yes. In answer No. 5, you confirmed that the answer is yes. Now we are in a position where we really do not know the position. This is important. I bet you there are people listening to this trying to work out what on earth the government's position will be next.

Comments

No comments