Steel Industry Protection Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lucas–1]—

Page 3, lines 27 to 29—Delete the clause

I indicated at the second reading a week or so ago (I cannot remember how long ago it was) that the Liberal party room had taken the decision, which I outlined at the second reading, to support a general scheme that allowed transparency in terms of what steel was being used in South Australian government-funded projects, but not to mandate the use of Australian steel.

At that time, I quoted the South Australian government's policy, which was to support Australian standard steel—that is, steel from anywhere in the world that met Australian standards. That was the South Australian government's position. I outlined the Australian government's position and what they had done to support Arrium, the people of Whyalla, and South Australia generally. I think some recent statements in terms of additional staff being employed at Arrium—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Mr Lucas, you can now continue.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have great respect for the Government Whip and, if he comes across the chamber to conduct business, I will give him his due. To continue: I have outlined the position of the Liberal parliamentary party room at the second reading, and this amendment is consistent with that, as indeed are the remainder of the amendments. Essentially, it is a package of amendments.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am looking for a government response, if they have one, to the amendment before I make a few remarks.

The CHAIR: Minister, any government response to this? Let's hear from you, anyway.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: If there is not going to be a government response, then I will put my position on the record. It does make divisions more likely when we don't know what are people's views on the topic. I will say that from the Greens' perspective we are very disappointed that these amendments (and I will treat this amendment as a test for all of the others) effectively gut the main provision of the bill.

As members would appreciate, there are two main themes in this legislation. The first one is an obligation for public projects to use Australian-made steel, and the second is an obligation on government agencies to report how much Australian steel they use. The effect of the Liberal Party amendments is to remove all references to the obligation to use Australian steel.

As the Hon. Rob Lucas said in his contribution, the approach that has been taken by the government requiring the use of Australian standard steel is good enough, and so the question then is: is that a proxy for Australian-made steel? My view is that it is not. It is entirely possible for other countries to meet the Australian standard, make that steel, and thereby satisfy the government's requirement.

Now, I think where this approach comes from is that a lot of the cheap Chinese steel that has been dumped onto the Australian market has not been of Australian standard. At some small level, it has historically been a proxy for Australian-made steel, but that situation cannot be guaranteed into the future. If the only protection that is offered is a government requirement that Australian standard steel be used, I think we will find that the proportion of Australian steel declines as other countries meet that standard and send their products to the Australian market.

My position is that the Greens oppose these amendments. We want the bill to be passed in its entirety, unamended. However, I am at a slight disadvantage as to whether we should divide on this amendment until I hear the government's position. I appreciate that the government is opposing the whole bill, but we have not tested the idea about whether they are going to accept the bill as amended by the Liberal Party. They might choose to do that. I have a few more remarks. I think there are frantic conversations occurring outside the chamber, but I will not let that distract me. I did go to Whyalla last week—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Has the government confirmed to you that they are going to vote against the whole bill?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am pretty sure they said that in the second reading speech. I went to Whyalla last week and I took the opportunity to catch up with the union. Without putting words into their mouths, I think they were pleased that there was a glimmer of hope on the horizon, with the 44 extra jobs, the extra shift on the rolling mill, that is as a result of some railway projects. The union appreciates that that particular project will not last for ever. What the workers of Whyalla need is an assurance that their jobs are secure into the long term.

What they really need is a long-term commitment by the government of the day to use locally produced steel in public projects. The importance of putting this measure into legislation is that it will bind the government of the day, unless the parliament repeals or amends the bill. The Greens' position is to not accept the amendment. I would urge all honourable members to vote against it. I am interested to hear whether the government has a position on this amendment now.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will not be supporting any of the Liberal amendments but I will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am looking for a sign. I am going to very quickly call 'Divide' if by chance it does not get through on the voices. I am giving the government one more opportunity. If they have something to say, they can say it, otherwise we will test the will of the house in the time-honoured fashion of counting heads.

The CHAIR: Any further contributions?

The committee divided on the question that clause 4 stand as printed:

Ayes 9

Noes 5

Majority 4

Clause thus passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 9) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:41): As I outlined at the second reading explanation, the Liberal parliamentary party room's position on this was that we would support an amended bill, but that the party room's position is not to support the bill as was originally introduced. The Hon. Mr Parnell understands that, so we will be opposing the third reading of the bill.

The council divided on the third reading:

While the division was in progress:

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There is a certain female member who cannot be in the vote right now because she has a small child and we do not have family friendly practices in this place that allow strangers of breast feeding age to be in this place for all counts. Other parliaments across this country do. What is South Australia doing?

The PRESIDENT: There are no restrictions for someone to breastfeed a child; it is her choice to be outside.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, it is not her choice when we have unfriendly family practices in this parliament that other—

The PRESIDENT: No, you made a comment that someone is outside breastfeeding because they could not come in here.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, I didn't say that.

The PRESIDENT: You did. That is what I heard.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I said parliaments across the country have family friendly policies so that they can come into a chamber during—

The PRESIDENT: Let's deal with the issue at hand.

Ayes 5

Noes 12

Majority 7

Third reading thus negatived.