Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This debate on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 has demonstrated that the case for reform is very clear. Some of the preceding speakers have clearly highlighted that need for reform. But all we get from the other side is more of the same, more of what we are seeing in a lot of policy areas at the moment—they are just running a scare campaign. The previous speaker was running a scare campaign based on protectionism. I personally have great faith in the capacity of our local shipping industry to innovate where needed and to compete.

Australia has the fourth largest freight task in the world, but shipping's share of that freight task has continued to fall since 2012. I will run through the Tasmanian experience, because I think what has happened on the little island shows in microcosm what has occurred on the big island. We do not have road or rail connections to many of those important hub ports; we have Bass Strait. Because of the changes that were made to legislation by the previous government in 2009 and again in 2012, we—immediately after the Coastal Shipping (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act—lost our international shipping service. That had a simple knock-on effect. We lost that international shipping service that was calling in at Port Adelaide, Bell Bay and Brisbane and then heading off to Singapore from where freight could go pretty much anywhere in the world. Once that service was lost, all of that volume moved onto the Bass Strait. I am not a master of economics, but with the lack of competition we saw prices go up.

You only have to look at the submissions that have been made to the Senate inquiry. Any number of representations have been made. Probably the most notable—and I note the member for Bass is sitting here next to me—was about the impact on Bell Bay Aluminium in his electorate. In the 12 months subsequent to the loss of that international shipping service, their costs went up by 63 per cent. Equally I could speak about Norske Skog, a paper manufacturer in the south of my electorate. The loss of that shipping service was not the sole reason, but it was certainly one reason, as Rod Bender said to me on many occasions, why they lost paper contracts in Western Australia—because there was no reliable way to service that market for newsprint in WA.

I could equally talk about Cement Australia at Railton, also in my electorate, another one that does not, of course, have the option of moving cement by road or rail. They depend absolutely on shipping. The costs to their businesses indeed have increased enormously. But just as easily I could be talking about every shipper, every exporter and every farmer in my electorate. This has a knock-on effect.

I note the review that was commissioned by the MUA and conducted by, if I am not mistaken, the Australia Institute. That is the same Australia Institute that I think did a lot of employee knock-on impacts within the forestry industry. They completely overestimated the impacts of the competition that would come and the potential job losses in these reforms, and they completely underestimated the impact on all of those other industries.

I have some sympathy, and I am not quite sure the member for Bass will have the same sympathy that I do, because I will give the benefit of the doubt to those opposite and I will say that the intentions of that Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012 were well intentioned, that they were not a sop to the MUA and that they were genuinely trying to bring about reform and revitalisation, as the title of the bill suggested. It might be unkind to suggest that it was a sop to the MUA, but, in the island state in an island nation, the impact was absolutely enormous. I do not understand the case that is being made by those opposite, and I dispute absolutely the references and the reference material that they use from the Australia Institute, because that is the same Australia Institute that condemned forestry in my state of Tasmania. Remember: it was the former government, along with a terrible state government that we endured for many years, that shut down forestry. They said there were only 2,000 jobs in forestry, but they ignored utterly the takeaway shops. They ignored the engineering shops in Launceston and the tyre businesses in Sorell—all of these businesses that depended very much on that sector. So it is with the logistics that are demanded in an island state to move goods efficiently and reliably. I do not understand why a job on the water is somehow more important than, for example, a job in the factory at Norske Skog, a job at a dairy manufacturing plant on the north-west coast or a job at Bell Bay Aluminium, as I am sure the member for Bass will allude to later on. I do not understand. For me, morally, I will stand up for those jobs and for every job. I give the benefit of the doubt to those opposite and to the MUA, whose bidding they were doing, that they were well intentioned, but they failed. They have utterly failed.

The evidence is there for all to see that the number of registered Australian ships has fallen and has continued to fall. It has not moved. In fact, one of the interesting things in the submission that the MUA made to the Senate committee was that it noted that there would be a $4.25 billion benefit in output and 9,000 additional jobs assuming that 100 additional ships were registered under this Australian International Shipping Register. What they do not tell you is that since that was introduced there have not been 10 and there have not been five; there have been zero vessels that have actually signed up to that International Shipping Register. So this is the situation that we have. As I say, I will stand up every day for jobs in my state, but when we start valuing one job on the water more than many more jobs, whether that be two, three or five times the number of jobs in businesses and industries around my state, I think the argument has failed.

I mentioned some of the other submissions to the Senate inquiry. Indeed, they are compelling reading, and it does not take very much comprehension to understand the impact, whether it be Bell Bay Aluminium, Cement Australia or Aluminium Industries Australia. I think one of the most impressive representations I read was from Primary Employers Tasmania, who, in their covering letter, provided me with a copy of the National Farmers' Federation submission on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Indeed, that made very compelling reading.

As I say, I do have some sympathy for those opposite, but the truth is that their reforms have unequivocally failed. The need for change is absolute; change is very much needed. The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 will provide an unambiguous objective of ensuring efficient and reliable coastal shipping services as part of the very important national transport system. A single coastal shipping permit for all ships—Australian and foreign flagged—will replace the existing tiered system, which, as I have highlighted, has failed, granting unrestricted access to coastal shipping. All contestability aspects of the current framework will be removed, and Australian and foreign ships will be treated equally, but I have great faith in the capacity of our shippers to compete. Foreign ships will not be imported by Customs when operating under a permit, including when dry-docking.

Finally, I want to touch on this. I have had a number of people write to me highlighting their concerns about the impact on local employees. As I mentioned, with the overestimation by Labor and the underestimation of the knock-on the impact on other sectors of the economy, there is little reason for the domestic shipping industry to be concerned. Consideration has been given within the construction of this legislation to make sure that Australian crews are protected with a framework of entitlements for seafarers on foreign vessels that are engaged or intend to engage in coastal shipping for more than 183 days. The amendments will apply to part B of the Seagoing Industry Award of 2010 for seafarers on vessels that engage predominantly in coastal shipping when the Fair Work Act 2009 applies to them.

In summary, this is much needed legislation. It will protect jobs and I have no doubt that Australian coastal shipping will continue to be able to compete. More importantly, it will protect jobs in many businesses all around Australia.

See this speech in context