Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Coastal shipping is an issue that I have raised on a number of occasions in this place. The dead weight of regulation in Australian coastal shipping is not only killing the very sector it was supposed to support; it is dragging other perfectly good and viable industries down the gurgler with it. Following the years of decline under Labor, the fleet of ships greater than 2,000 tonne deadweight have halved from 30 to 15. It was then, in 2012, that former minister Albanese stepped in to help. It is bit scary; it is that great phrase, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Well, it has made matters worse. In fact, since that time there has been a 63 per cent reduction in deadweight capacity. It was Bert Kelly, the then member for Wakefield, who blew the whistle on protectionism in Australia in the sixties and seventies. He was an individual whom Gough Whitlam later described by saying, 'No private member has ever had as much influence in changing a major policy of the major parties.' Simply put, Bert Kelly knew that protectionism not only was futile but actually tore down our most efficient industries. Nothing has changed in the 40 years since, and coastal shipping is one of the last fully protected industries in Australia.

Australia has rid itself of the last of the old barriers, and we have enjoyed huge jumps in our standard of living on a comparative basis with the rest of the world. Yes, we have challenges. Yes, unemployment is too high. Yes, we have to work hard to address inequalities. But there are more people employed in Australia now than ever before. Compared with the rest of the world, we enjoy an almost unparalleled standard of living because we have been prepared to take the tough decisions on market and labour reform. Clinging to the past and penalising our best industries is not the future, neither is it so with coastal shipping and its impact on successful industry.

I have raised the case of GRA's gypsum mine at Kevin a number of times in this place in connection with this inequality. Kevin is near Penong, the westernmost town in my electorate, which is 100 kilometres west of Ceduna. GRA is owned by CSR and Boral, and it once produced more than 90 per cent of the gypsum that produces Australia's plasterboard. It is now a little less than that. It is mined very cheaply and then railed about 80 kilometres to the coastal shipping port of Thevenard. More than 1½ million tonnes a year are mined. Gypsum is not rare and not expensive to mine. It is virtually worthless at the mine gate. Most of the cost is in freight, and it is a sad fact that it has now become cheaper to import gypsum from Thailand for the Brisbane market and increasingly for the Sydney market than it is to transport it the relatively short distance—less than a third of those distances—from Thevenard to those markets around Australia's coast.

The Kevin mine exists because GRA has a long-term shipping contract with a Canadian company, incidentally called CSL. These contracts do not last forever, and when they conclude it is difficult to see why the parent companies would elect to continue mining at Kevin when they can import product cheaper from Thailand. This is not because it is cheaper to mine, not because it is better quality and not because their Australian workforce is unproductive. It is simple because of transport costs and, in this case, sea freight—transport compulsorily supplied by totally uncompetitive Australian registered shipping. It is madness, and in the end neither the miners, those employed to service the short rail service to Thevenard or those loading the vessels will keep their jobs. And neither will those whom the Labor government legislated to protect: the members of the MUA. They too will lose their jobs because there will no freight to shift.

OneSteel and Arrium are significant players at Whyalla in my electorate. They mine in a region that is a bit bigger than just that and they are big users of coastal shipping—metallurgical coal from Queensland and New South Wales to Whyalla, dolomite from Ardrossan to Whyalla and New South Wales for steel making. One would think the iron ore would come to Wollongong from Whyalla. But, no, I understand it is a better result for the company to import the raw product from Brazil and to export Australian iron rather than use the local product. That is really telling us something. It is cheaper to use iron ore from Brazil than to use local, Australian iron ore. I cannot be sure if the cost of coastal shipping is the only reason for this, but if it costs $20 to shift the local product and $10 to import, it is likely that it is a big part of the reason. I also understand they import limestone from Japan. You would not think there was any great shortage of limestone in Australia.

Nyrstar are also significant users. Over half the concentrate is now sourced overseas. Australia is a major exporter of lead and zinc concentrates. Yet there is only one sum here that matters: the cost of the concentrate at the smelter door—material costs plus freight. Australian material costs are good. That is why we can make money exporting. But increasingly we must export our concentrate and import our feedstocks for smelting just because of the freight differentials. Others may argue that the current system does not completely eliminate the chance of international competition on coastal sea freight, which in itself would bring pressure to bear on the ridiculous workplace practices embedded in the awards covering Australian seamen, but it is a fig leaf of an argument.

In effect, it is all but a closed shop. For instance, if a company is unable to find Australian shipping to complete a task, they can ask an international supplier to apply for a temporary licence for a minimum of five voyages. What if the movement is a one-off? The company must apply for a minimum of five movements. Additionally, once the application is lodged, there is provision for the local supplier, even if they cannot supply a timely service, to disallow. Restrictions that include tolerance levels—that is, the nominated tonnages—and delays abound while certification alterations are sought. Constantly we speak about the need for flexibility and agility in our business sector. This is a complex, protective labyrinth of regulation. It is the very antithesis of efficiency.

Even when foreign specialist ships are brought into our waters they are required to recrew with Australian seamen. This, of course, means long-term, efficient international crews have their employment terminated while the vessel remains in Australian waters. Some will think this is a fair enough requirement. Why wouldn't we look after our Australian crews? However, a few months ago I was speaking to an Australian worker who was part of a specialist technical team working on a survey vessel. He said, 'I work my guts out. Do you know why?' And I said, 'No. Tell me.' He said, 'Because I am so embarrassed to say I'm Australian. They think all Australians work like these sea crews. I'm embarrassed. I work to prove that we're not all the same.' He used language that was a bit stronger than that, I must say. But it is a very telling story because he works alongside those international crews when the ship is not in Australian waters.

The issue is not the wages but the work the Australian crews do for the money under conditions bludgeoned out by a militant union. And who pays? The workers in our manufacturing industry, the building manufacturers, the agriculturalists, particularly the Tasmanian agriculturalists, and workers in our steel refining sector pay for it. They pay for it with their jobs. In fact, the BCA estimates there are 90,000—

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context