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

I rise to speak on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. These bills have been around for a while. We have only got to them by reason of other legislation being dealt with—the carbon tax bills and our single-handed desire to cool the planet from a room in Canberra, send us back to 1910 to ride horses around and change our car parks back into stables. Maybe we could rename this place 'the Manger' as opposed to Parliament House.

This bill seeks to amend the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. It will introduce an offence for negligent navigation in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment. It will create an offence for failure to report in a mandatory reporting area. It will increase the penalties for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residue by ships. This is a clear example of how, at times, though the public never see it, there are bills that we agree on. They are called noncontroversial because we agree on them and therefore they do not make the paper. The lasting impact of damage to our unique marine environment should not be underestimated. While significant environmental incidents are relatively uncommon, the number of reported oil spills in Australian waters has averaged over 250 per year for the last 10 years. Oil spills at sea have the potential to cause lasting damage to our marine ecosystem as well as having an ongoing impact on the maritime, fishing and tourism industries. We have seen this globally with examples such as the Exxon Valdez. I heard the other night that more oil is spilt in a year than was spilt by the Exxon Valdez; it is just that that oil spill was over such a wide area of United States coastline.

Oil spills at sea have the potential to cause lasting damage. In Australia's recent history, we have had two very pertinent maritime incidents that stand out. One was the grounding of the Shen Neng 1, which ploughed into a reef off Gladstone, and the other was the Pacific Adventurer oil spill.

Senator Feeney interjecting—

You are right. I will take the interjection. The Labor Party said it was an attack on fossil fuels. This is yet another unity ticket where we all hope that the Labor Party will be able to hold out against the Greens, who want to get rid of fossil fuels. They want to get rid of fossil fuels because they are basically anti civilisation and want to take us back to being content hunters and gatherers on the forest floor, eating beetles and nuts. In dealing with the interjection, if we were to claim that the Labor Party would roll over to the Greens, we would probably have someone like Mr Swan come out and say that that was hysterical. Mind you, that is exactly what he said to us when we said that they would roll over on the carbon tax.

The changes proposed in this bill implement some of the recommendations from a report conducted by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority in the wake of the Shen Neng 1incident. The Shen Neng 1ran aground 38 nautical miles east of Great Keppel Island, causing damage to a three-kilometre stretch of the Great Barrier Reef. Mind you, it will grow back. This caused the fuel tanks to rupture and four tonnes of fuel oil to leak into the surrounding waters. Thankfully, the vessel was successfully salvaged by Svitzer, preventing the spillage of coal, heavy fuel and oil which was on board.

I remember at the time the interest in the spill and the circus of aircraft flying over it. It was visited more than the Holy Spirit that day. There was Peter Garrett, Anna Bligh and the Prime Minister all earnestly looking out the window at it. What surprised me about that is that not far from there is a real ecological disaster that no-one wants to talk about—that is, the Mount Morgan mine. It is completely full of water and has heavy metals throughout. It has killed the river downstream. No-one wants to talk about it. It is in the too-hard basket. There are 11,000 megalitres of water and they have the capacity to treat six megalitres a year. It is leaking from the tailings at the moment. You only have to go to the Dee River just below it to see. It is killing crops. Cattle are not allowed to use it. People are not allowed to swim in it. No-one wants to talk about it. It is owned by the state government, of course, and that is why the state government does not want to talk about it.

The Pacific Adventurer oil spill in March 2009 saw 270 tonnes of heavy oil leak as far as seven nautical miles off the coast of Cape Moreton. The ship lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard which caused the leak. The clean-up operation lasted two months and involved 2½ thousand people. Three-thousand tonnes of contaminated sand was removed from Moreton Island.

This bill implements a number of measures. Firstly, clause 267ZZI will require the master of any ship in Australian waters not to operate the ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment. Additionally, the bill will require that the master of any ship in Australian waters must ensure the ship is operated in a manner that does not cause pollution or damage to the marine environment—clause 267ZZJ. Similarly, in relation to Australian flag vessels operating on the high seas, it is the responsibility of the master not to operate the ship in a manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment—clause 267ZZL—and to ensure that the ship is operated in a manner that does not cause pollution or damage to the marine environment, which is under clause 267ZZM.

This bill also creates criminal and civil penalties for contraventions of these provisions and the procedural requirement through which compliance with the bill may be enforced. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for and a higher civil penalty may apply in the case of serious damage. The high penalties are intended to deter noncompliance and to take into account the level of cost saving that shipping operators may achieve through noncompliance and the perceived likelihood that a breach will be identified and a shipping operator prosecuted.

The bill also creates an offence where the master of a ship fails to report in a mandatory reporting area—clause 269E—such as the Great Barrier Reef. A strict liability offence is created, so no intention is necessary for an offence to be committed. This makes it clear that the prosecution does not have to establish that the master knew or was reckless as to the fact that the ship was in a mandatory reporting area. This is appropriate as the defendant, the ship's master, is best placed to provide evidence as to whether the provision was contravened. Finally, the bill increases penalties under the legislation for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or oil residues by ships. Australia, as a signatory to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, MARPOL, is required to ensure that the penalties specified in law are adequate to discourage violations. Presently the act imposes a maximum penalty of $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a corporation for reckless or negligent discharge of oil or residue into the sea. However, this is significantly less than that imposed by state governments, with spills in New South Wales and Queensland having a maximum penalty of up to $10 million for a corporation.

The bill will increase the fine for a corporation from $1.1 million to $11 million. The amendment will mean that the severity of a penalty will be based on the seriousness of the offence and not the location of the offence. In increasing the penalty, the bill puts the burden on the polluter to pay the clean-up bill. In the wake of the Pacific Adventurerspill—and I think everyone remembers that, when everybody was out cleaning the beaches, scraping up the oil—the Protection of the Sea Levy was increased by 3c per registered tonne in order to recover the clean-up costs of the spill. This meant that the industry paid for the mistake of a particular shipping line, as their legal liability was inadequate to cover the cost of the clean-up. It should be noted that the owner of the Pacific Adventurer, Swire Shipping, agreed to pay $25 million in compensation in excess of their legal obligations arising from the oil spill. This was still below the total clean-up cost, which was estimated at $31 million.

In conclusion, the coalition is pleased to support the bill and will continue to support sensible measures designed to protect our unique marine environment. The ongoing situation in New Zealand shows us that, while major incidents in Australia are rare, they can happen. We need to take steps to deter dangerous and reckless actions at sea and to deal appropriately with incidents should they arise.

Once more, this is an example of an environmental piece of legislation which is bipartisan. This is an example of a position where both parties have decided to agree to get passage of the legislation to bring about a better environmental outcome. This legislation actually has the capacity to provide a better environmental outcome, as opposed to the carbon tax, which is not going to do anything for the environment but will just make people poorer. This piece of legislation quite evidently will try to alleviate and mitigate the effects of oil spillages. A tax delivered to every power point in the house is going to do absolutely nothing at all to cool the planet. Now we hear that the Greens want to go to totally renewables in the next 10 years. That will send us back to the Dark Ages, literally.

It is incredible that, within maybe 48 hours of the passage of the carbon tax legislation, the people that the Labor Party negotiated with, who are now at the tiller of this nation, have made a statement which quite obviously will accelerate driving the ship of state into the rocks. One has to ask the question: what on earth happened in the discussions? Mr Combet assured us that this was not going to cost one manufacturing job. What happened in those discussions? Did they discuss that? Did they say: 'The people we're in business with want to completely and utterly shut down any form of major industry in Australia'? How did we get to a position where, when we were told that it was all under control, that it was competent, that—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask that you draw the speaker's attention to the bill. I appreciate the fact that he is using as much maritime and navigational terminology as he can but, notwithstanding that, he is not referring to the bill. This is a time for non-controversial legislation. If he is going to filibuster, I ask that he at least be artful about it and refer to the bill.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: Senator Feeney raises a point of order that is rarely raised in relation to speeches in second reading debates. Senator Joyce is clearly very much on the topic and, as well as that, is making some very good points, which perhaps the minister at the table does not like to hear.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It sounds just like you're filibustering!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you raised the point of order, Minister. If you are accusing—

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, do not debate the issue. I think you have made yourself quite clear on the point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just responding to an unruly interjection from the minister. I hope I have made my point.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the speaker is being very relevant to the bill.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, but I will direct Senator Joyce's comments to the question that is before the chair.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President—a Daniel come to judgment.

The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is a good piece of legislation. As it is a good piece of legislation, we should juxtapose it quite clearly with an appalling piece of legislation, which was the carbon tax. This legislation will actually deal with the problem. That is why it is a superior piece of legislation to pieces of legislation such as the Clean Energy Bill, which started off as something about global warming then became about carbon pollution and then became about clean energy. The government did not have to use weasel words in this bill like they had to in that bill, where it had to keep changing and changing.

The reason that this piece of legislation has an inherent strength to it—and it is essential that we talk to this—is that there has been a competent hand on the tiller, with the political association between the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, to bring about a piece of legislation that is not extreme and that everybody knows the effect of. That juxtaposes quite evidently with the Clean Energy Bill, where we have no idea what the effect of it will be. There was absolutely no competency whatsoever shown by the minister to answer serious questions about it. The minister could give flowing recitations on glamorous points but on the technicalities and getting down to the detail was completely and utterly at sea.

After this bill is passed, we will have a period of certainty. The Labor Party, in debate on the other bill, talked about certainty, yet within 48 hours the Australian Greens were back on the front page of the paper saying that they had to take the next step and the next step is the complete removal of fossil fuels from Australia. Where will this end? With the removal of fossil fuels. Every motor car runs on fossil fuels, so we take them off the road. So you say, 'We'll have electric cars.' Electricity is generated predominantly from fossil fuels, so we will take electric cars off the road, too. We go back to ships: every one of them will be off the sea except those coming from overseas. Those from overseas will still be allowed but the Australian ships will be gone. The trains run on diesel so we will take them off the railway lines. There will be nothing left.

It would not matter if this had come from the ramblings of a dissident group, but this came from the Greens partner in the Greens-Labor Party-Independent alliance. I deliberately put them in that order because that is how the show is being run. The leading light of the Greens-Labor Party-Independent alliance—the glee club—who negotiated and brought into our nation this Clean Energy Bill, is now wanting to completely remove from Australia motor cars, trains, ships, recreational pursuits, anything to do with fossil fuels, anything with a synthetic base or an oil base, or plastics, carpets or nylons. We will obviously have to get rid of coal and steel. How would we build this place? What would we build it out of? We cannot use steel. We will build it out of sticks. There will be no more glass because you need energy to make glass.

This is the new world. This is where they live. Quite evidently, the absurdity is that this is where our nation is going. At times, if you did not laugh you would cry. While all this is going on, what is happening overseas? The world is basically falling out of its financial bed. So what are we doing to our nation? We are putting it in the most precarious position, completely redesigning it on a colourless, odourless gas. How absurd is that?

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's weightless, isn't it?

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

What a peculiar thing for someone to say. You have just brought in a bill. Do you not know about it? Of course carbon dioxide has weight. What an incredibly foolish interjection from somebody whose party has been prominent in bringing into our nation the most dangerous act in my time here. He asked: 'Isn't it weightless?' What a peculiar question. This is why what they are doing to our nation is so dangerous. As I said before, Julia Gillard is the Romulus Augustus of the Australian Labor Party. It is all over. It just goes to show that, when they want to, we can do things which are effective.

The other day they passed the most dangerous piece of legislation economically for our nation at this juncture of our history. What we see now coming from their alliance partner the Greens is a question as to whether carbon dioxide is weightless—a foolish thing to ask. And today they are thrilled to be on the front page of the paper saying they are ready for the next step. They have hardly taken a breath and they are ready for the next step. The next step, Australia, is to remove fossil fuels from our nation. When that happens, you will not have to worry about the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill as far as Australian ships go. We will not have any Australian ships because we will not be allowed to have steel, we will not be allowed to have fuel and we will not have an economy.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In commencing my contribution to the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill, I indicate that I reject and am offended by the suggestion by the senator at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, that this is a filibuster. I remind the minister that I have been here a long time through previous Labor and Liberal governments. This last four years has been the most restrictive period of speeches and contributions to debate that I have seen in the long time I have been in this parliament. All this week we have had bills guillotined, with the Greens joining the Labor Party to cut off speeches. Mr Acting Deputy President, you are aware that government documents, all those literally thousands of documents which are promulgated by government and government agencies each day and by necessity brought into this chamber so that they can be scrutinised, have been removed from—

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask that you draw the speaker to the subject matter before the Senate.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am simply making the point that, when you try to debate a bill, all you get from the government is accusations and attempts to interrupt. We have not had a chance to even look at Government documents—of which there are thousands—during the last two or three weeks, showing that this government has no interest in parliamentary democracy. That is why I intend to take my full time in addressing aspects of this bill. Out of courtesy to the minister and his advisers, I indicate that I do want to go into committee and, for the advisers' benefit, I indicate that I do want to explore the provisions of subsection 267ZZI (1) to (5) and perhaps other aspects of the bill. As Senator Joyce has said, the coalition will be supporting this because it does have some attraction as to the benefit to the Great Barrier Reef and it follows on from a lot of other federal government legislation to protect the Great Barrier Reef. When I start looking at the legislation in a bit more detail, I find there are some aspects of it which cause me great concern. So I want to find out whether the stakeholders were consulted and I want to make sure that my understanding of what is a quite complicated piece of legislation is correct, as I might have amendments to move in relation to those aspects once I get the answers from the minister.

This bill, as was said in the second reading speech and by Senator Joyce, came to light as a result of two incidents involving vessels in the Great Barrier Reef area. One was the Sheng Neng 1 incident, where almost a thousand tonnes of heavy fuel oil and around 65,000 tonnes of coal caused significant environmental damage and required a very extensive shoreline clean-up. The other one involved the Pacific Adventurer, which lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard in Moreton Bay, not quite the Great Barrier Reef area but, of course, this legislation is Australia wide and not confined to the Great Barrier Reef and of real concern is the protection of all of our fairly pristine waters around Australia. The waters around Australia are not terribly productive waters, from a marine mammal and fish point of view, but they are, by world standards, very pristine and we want to keep them that way.

So this legislation arose out of those two particular incidents and out of a report by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority which made four recommendations. One was to extend the coverage of the reef vessel traffic service to the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef. Another recommendation was to strengthen regulatory arrangements, including modernising the penalties and offence provisions. A further recommendation was to enhance navigational aids in the Great Barrier Reef area. The fourth was to develop a whole-of-government management plan. Senators will probably tire from hearing me say this but I will continue to say it because I am very proud of this fact: I live in that part of Australia which is adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef and over my lifetime I have been out there fishing and I have helped small businesses who have made a real contribution to tourist numbers in Australia by their work on the Great Barrier Reef, so I know it is a fabulous living thing that must be nurtured.

Senator Feeney interjecting—

I know the minister is not interested in the environmental protection of the Great Barrier Reef, but I am sure the Greens political party will be speaking on this bill, which is very important. As I was about to say, the Great Barrier Reef is worth saving, this bill is an element of doing that and it follows a lot of very significant environmental legislation introduced by Liberal governments in the past. Who can forget that it was the Fraser Liberal government that first introduced management plans for Fraser Island, at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef? Who can forget that it was Liberal governments that established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Who can forget—although some on our side remember this only too well and not all that favourably—that it was a Liberal-National party government that introduced the green zones of the Great Barrier Reef, perhaps the most significant step forward in looking at protection of the Great Barrier Reef.

If you read former Senator Richardson's book, Whatever It Takes, you will understand what this is about. Senator Richardson said, quite rightly, over the Labor years it was about whatever it took to stay in power and, at the time former Senator Richardson was around, the thing that was required to stay in power was environmental concern. The Labor Party have never had any interest in the environment but 'Richo', former Senator Richardson, told them that if they wanted to win elections they had to look like they were doing something for the environment. So they talked a lot about it and they brought in some silly things. But the significant environmental protections that have ever happened in Australia have occurred at the times of Liberal-National party governments and that is particularly the case with the Great Barrier Reef. So this legislation is simply another step forward in protecting the Great Barrier Reef.

Before I get on to the detailed provisions of the bill, I want to mention that it is not just as to the sea that we protect the Great Barrier Reef; we do protect the Great Barrier Reef by many other ways. One of the ways that the Great Barrier Reef is being protected is by an activity called Reef Rescue. It was a program that the Howard government had been working on and we had been providing money to farmers and coastal landholders to encourage them to act so that nothing they did impacted on the Great Barrier Reef. This legislation is about spills of oil and things being carried on ships but many would say there is a greater danger to the reef from what happens on the land. Prior to the 2007 election, the Liberal and National parties made a commitment to the Australian people that they would introduce a program called Reef Rescue. From memory, I think we promised $250 million to go to natural resource management groups along the Great Barrier Reef coast who would then go out and work with farmers and landowners to minimise damaging run-off to the reef. I have to say, to the Labor Party's credit, they also adopted our policy and actually put in a bit more money. From memory, I think they offered about $400 million. But it was a policy initiated by the Howard government and taken up by the Labor Party, and I am pleased about that. I give credit where credit is due.

Reef Rescue has given land managers the incentive and skills needed to act now and more than 1,700 landowners have been engaged in 2,755 different on-the-ground projects to help with Reef Rescue, which is being organised by a group of coastal natural resource management groups called Reef Alliance. As the alliance says in its report on this program:

In some cases change was achieved with cash—through co-investment with land managers—giving people the incentive to update their machinery, infrastructure or management techniques. In many cases projects were already on the drawing board, but the availability of a grant—

some of this $250 million or $400 million—

made them a reality much sooner.

Risk assessments, farm plans and training enabled people to expand their skills and knowledge. Developing technical skills, gaining expert advice, understanding scientific knowledge and chatting with peers at field days have all been vital to achieving on ground change. Many landholders now have a clearer picture of how to run their business in a sustainable and—

I would emphasise—

profitable way.

Whether they were achieved through grants or training, the resulting changes in land management are having a tangible and immediate impact—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, I draw your attention to the fact that, whilst this may have an association with the legislation before us, it is not directly related. I draw you back to the subject of the bill.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, the work being done has a tangible and immediate impact in reducing run-off at the farm level into the Barrier Reef. Many would indicate that that is perhaps a greater problem for the Great Barrier Reef than accidents at sea. I support anything that assists the Barrier Reef, whether it be Reef Rescue or this legislation. But, as is typical with the Labor Party, you have to be very careful about legislation that they bring forward.

I note that a strict liability offence is created in clause 269E so that no intention is necessary for the offence to be committed. This makes it clear that in prosecuting an offence under the proposed act the prosecution does not have to establish that the master knew of or was reckless about the fact that the ship was in a mandatory reporting area. Perhaps this is appropriate, as a ship's master is very often best placed to provide evidence as to whether this section was contravened. Nevertheless, many of us on this side of the chamber as a matter of principle have concerns about the creation of these strict liability offences. In some cases it is difficult for a master or somebody in a position of responsibility to account for all of the issues that he is responsible for at any given time.

Mr Acting Deputy President, you might recall, as I am sure other senators will recall, debates in this parliament about proposals to introduce strict liability offences for aircraft captains in circumstances where they could not possibly be expected to be able to take responsibility for what happens. There was a big issue at the time about strict liability offences for airline pilots. Again, legislation introduced by this government, no matter what its intentions, is always pretty light on detail and management. But there was quite a substantial debate on that. I think the legislation was blocked in the Senate, if my memory serves me correctly. Eventually those proposals were defeated.

I just mention that to say that there is always a bit of a concern about strict liability offences. But this is a different circumstance. The strict liability in this bill is only in relation to an offence where a vessel is in a mandatory reporting area, and perhaps a vessel that is in a mandatory reporting area like the Great Barrier Reef is usually there for quite some time. It would seem incomprehensible that a master could have any excuse for not knowing that he was there or not undertaking the mandatory reporting processes. As a general principle, there are concerns about strict liability offences, but in this instance perhaps it is relevant.

I also want to draw the Senate's attention to the provisions of the bill that place quite substantial requirements in many instances. I am just pausing to get my notes in relation to the particular offences that I wanted to mention to the Senate and which I want to raise in the Committee of the Whole. I note that there is a provision about Australian ships causing pollution or damage in the marine environment outside Australia. That is in proposed subdivision C of the bill. Section 267ZZK provides that the proposed subdivision C applies to all ships, including those generally excluded by section 2, from the operation of the Navigation Act. The following subclause provides that a master of an Australian ship must not operate the ship in a negligent and reckless manner that causes pollution or damage to the marine environment in seas beyond Australia's territorial sea or EEZ. That is an interesting provision.

When I was the minister for fisheries in the Howard government, our government put a lot of work into trying to regulate provisions that would protect the rare Patagonian toothfish. With a lot of effort and the engagement of new vessels to enforce Australia's law, we were able to clear out pirates who were pillaging the rare Patagonian toothfish stocks within Australia's waters and our EEZ. But on the high seas it was not that easy. I know of a number of instances where Australia, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada looked very seriously at what the world could do to regulate shipping on the high seas. It is easy to regulate it within the exclusive economic zone of any country, but it is much more difficult of course on the high seas. There is a United Nations convention on the law of the sea that in some way mentions that, but the difficulty in enforcing anything on the high seas is fairly obvious. So I am interested in how Australia can legislate for Australian ships on the high seas causing pollution. I am intrigued to find out in the committee stage how that will apply.

There is also another matter that I want to explore further in the committee stage, and that is the involvement for the very first time first time of fishing vessels in these sorts of laws. These laws have in the past applied to the big tankers carrying lots of oil and various items that could in fact have caused major damage to the Great Barrier Reef and other parts of Australian waters. But, for the very first time, this legislation seems to involve fishing vessels, and that is what I want to explore in committee. (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions and I congratulate you, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, for your attempts to get coalition senators to at least acknowledge the standing orders and to try to actually be relevant to the bill. But of course what we have heard today—and Senator Brandis summed this up very clearly—is that the opposition have no intention whatsoever of allowing any further legislation to pass. Despite the fact that they intend to vote for this legislation—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Senator Brandis has not even taken part in this debate, and the minister, having just come into the chamber, clearly has no idea, as usual, what he is talking about.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition have made it perfectly clear that they have absolutely no intention of taking these matters seriously. Of course, what this is is the dummy spit that you have from time to time from people who have no real interest in actually undertaking their proper legislative functions in this chamber. After 29 hours of debate around the climate change legislation and the steel bills—where we saw 19 speakers put on the list, just to make sure that we burnt up as much time as possible—we have speaker after speaker engaging in tedious repetition.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Time is pressing, and we want to progress this and actually get somewhere. I do not even know whether the minister knows which bill he is talking about. If you can expedite this and get us to a position where we actually conclude, that would be really appreciated.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask all of those senators here who are here tonight and who will not be able to get home to their families, who will not be able to get on a plane tonight, to bear in mind the tactics that are being pursued by the Liberal Party leadership in this chamber. When you are stuck here tonight think about why you are here. Think about Senator Abetz and get him on the phone.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I draw the minister's attention to the bill before the Senate, which is the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you will not be getting an aircraft home tonight because Senator Abetz and the tactics of obstructionism that they are following in this chamber mean that work will not be done.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order—once more, on relevance. At this point, listening to this tirade, I have not heard one word that he has said that has absolutely anything to do with the bill that is before us.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have heard from the Liberal Party every possible diversion to get away from the fact that they want to obstruct the work of this Senate. I understand that you have no intention of passing this bill today, that you have absolutely no intention of dealing with the substance of this issue with respect to maritime shipping. You have tried to pretend that it is something else. You really are running a pretty pathetic attempt to frustrate the work of the Senate—and you should think about that tonight. When you would rather be home with your family, just think about that tonight.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.