Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

There has, quite rightly, been a lot of discussion today, including by the member for Parramatta, about how the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 will result in significant job losses. That is a very important dimension of the debate and a very important downside to what the government is trying to achieve here—thousands of Australian workers in the maritime industries will lose their jobs.

But I would like to just focus a little on my home state of Tasmania, because those job losses—and I think the member for Parramatta made the point—will have a disproportionate effect in Tasmania. In fact, by some estimates, some 230 Tasmanians will lose their jobs as a direct result of this bill becoming law—230 workers in a state of just 500,000 people. Let us put that in perspective: that is smaller than the Gold Coast-Tweed Heads area; it is only a little bit bigger than the population of Canberra and only a little bit bigger than the population of Newcastle and Maitland. That is the size of the population in Tasmania. But 230 Tasmanians will lose their job as a result of the decision of this government if this bill eventually becomes law.

Tasmania is a state with a soft economy—a state where there have already been quite large job losses across a number of sectors in recent years. In fact, as a result of the decisions of this government and the previous government, 198 staff from the CSIRO in Tasmania have lost their jobs. As a direct result of the decisions of this government, dozens of staff at the Australian Antarctic Division have lost their jobs. As a direct result of the decisions of this and the previous government to not send defence work to the Prince of Wales Bay Defence manufacturing precinct in my electorate of Denison, we have not grown the economy and we have not employed more people. As a direct result of this government deciding not to spend $16 million of economic stimulus in the Glenorchy city area, which was promised through Cadbury before the last election, the economy there will not grow; it will stay soft; more people will not be employed. In fact, just last week Cadbury announced they are sacking 11 more workers at the chocolate factory at Claremont in Hobart. So we have a soft economy that desperately needs good public policy—desperately needs good decisions by this government. Yet here we are today talking about a bill which, if it becomes law, will directly result in thousands of Australians losing their jobs and over 200 losing their jobs in the small state of Tasmania.

It does not need to be this way. We do not need to deregulate the shipping industry in this country. We do not need to open up our coast to a free-for-all for foreign flagged vessels with cheaper crews. We do not need to take away the current requirements in the existing arrangements for companies shipping goods between domestic ports to first seek out an Australian vessel, which is the requirement under the current legislation.

Why we would do this beggars belief. It beggars belief! There is only one group of organisations and people in this country that will benefit from this, and that is business and business owners. It does not need to be this way, because this is ultimately a direct attack on Australian workers and a direct attack on the unions. Yes, fair enough: the current government has an ideological aversion to organised labour and to the unions—and, in particular, to the Maritime Union and the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers. But they should not let that ideological position result in bad public policy. It is as simple as that. They can think whatever they want about organised labour, but they should never let that dislike for organised labour result in bad public policy—particularly bad public policy like this bill that will result directly in thousands of Australians losing their jobs.

But do you know what? Even if the current government does want to look after its mates in big business, it is still missing the target in this case, because the current arrangements that are about to be axed, if this bill becomes law, will include the favourable tax breaks—the tax treatment—that had resulted in SeaRoad, a major Tasmanian corporation, deciding to buy two more vessels to a value of about $100 million. SeaRoad have already been on the front page, or near on the front page, of the Mercury newspaper saying that if this bill does become law then the purchase of those two new vessels, which are very important to that company—an investment of some $100 million—will not go ahead.

It is not good enough for some members of the government or for the Tasmanian members of the Liberal Party to stand up and say that this bill has overwhelming support in the community. It does not. It certainly does not have support from SeaRoad, who are likely not to invest $100 million as a result of this bill. It certainly does not have the support of TT-Line, which operates the two magnificent red and white ferries that travel between Victoria and Tasmania, which many members of this place have travelled on. Perhaps if the members of this House who have travelled on the Spirit of Tasmania had thought more about it, they might have realised that in fact TT-Line supports the current arrangements. In fact, TT-Line was one of the most energetic advocates during the previous parliament for these arrangements to be put in place.

Regrettably, this is more about ideology with the current government than it is about good public policy. In some ways, it is a diversion from the big issues.

One of the big issues, undoubtedly, is the decline in the Australian shipping industry. I see that in 1995—just 20 years ago—there were 55 Australian flagged coastal cargo vessels. By three years ago, it was down to 23—it had more than halved. Last year it was down to 18. This beggars belief. We are an island nation. Ninety-eight per cent of our imports and exports travel by sea. Yet we have 18 Australian flagged coastal cargo vessels. This is madness, whether you look at this from the point of view of transport security for industry or of national security in a time of conflict when, perhaps, some companies from some other countries may not be able to deliver the services they currently deliver. Surely we should be doing everything in our power to build up the Australian shipping industry. We should be coming up with policies that result in many more ships. In fact, we should even be considering the sorts of arrangements they have in place in countries like the United States.

I have heard mention today of the so-called Jones Act in the United States which requires that all merchandise transported between two ports within the jurisdiction of the United States be carried by a US flagged vessel, built in the United States, owned by a US citizen and crewed by American merchant mariners. Instead of debating this bill, why aren't we, in the public interest, debating the merits of some kind of Jones Act equivalent in this country? If it is affordable in other countries, surely it can be affordable in this country. Why can't we only have Australian flagged vessels, owned by Australian corporations or individuals and crewed by Australians doing all of the shipping between ports on our coastline, including the offshore energy sector? Why can't we do that? In part because of lack of vision. In part because of an ideological attack on workers and organised labour by this government. In part because of lack of ambition. In part because of lack of imagination to work out how to make this work. Why don't we have very generous tax concessions for companies and people who would want to make something like the Jones Act work in this country?

We need dozens and dozens and dozens of Australian owned vessels, Australian flagged vessels, Australian crewed vessels, plying our coasts. That will give certainty for Australian industry, that will bolster our national security and that will be the behaviour of a rich and clever maritime nation, instead of the absurdity at the moment where we have only 18 Australian flagged coastal cargo vessels. I am here defending the current arrangements because they are the best we have and they are under attack, but we should be in here debating how to fix the current arrangements to make them even more effective, in my opinion.

This bill is also a distraction from another very important issue. I will now bring this close to home, to Tasmania. We have a very significant shipping problem in and out of Tasmania. It costs too much to get people, vehicles and freight across Bass Strait. In fact, the cost of crossing Bass Strait is the single most significant brake on the Tasmanian economy and it is the easiest to fix. Over recent months, I have heard Liberal Party members and Tasmanian Liberal Party senators saying that this bill will fix that. That is patent nonsense. This bill will not solve the problems for Tasmania and the costs of Bass Strait. In fact, if anything, it will make those problems even worse, because SeaRoad, which I have referred to already—one of the major shipping lines in and out of Tasmania across Bass Strait—is seriously contemplating not buying two new vessels and not spending $100 million. Those new and more efficient vessels would significantly enhance shipping across Bass Strait and would promise to bring the cost of crossing Bass Strait down to some degree.

I am very concerned that we have had Tasmanian Liberal Party members and senators in this place and outside, in front of the media and in the newspapers, arguing in support of this bill. Heavens, I thought the job of a senator, for example, was to stick up for their state. It turns out that in Australia these days the job of a senator is to stick up for their party and their party's position, no matter how crazy it is. It would be much healthier for our country if particularly senators started arguing for their state. If they were arguing for their state, Liberal Party senators would be arguing against this bill in the Senate. They would be arguing against this bill because it will cost 230 jobs in Tasmania. They would be arguing against this bill because it will kill investment by the shipping lines operating in and out of Tasmania. They would be arguing against this bill for a whole range of reasons. They would be arguing against this bill because it is a distraction from the fundamental shipping problem affecting Tasmania, and that is the cost of crossing Bass Strait.

I obviously will not support this bill—I am sure that is quite clear—but I will tell you what the government needs to focus on. The government needs to scrap this bill. It is a dud. It is nothing more than pandering to their ideological obsession, with their mates in business, with their disinterest in Australian workers and with their sometimes hatred of organised labour. The MUA and the Institute of Marine and Power Engineers have done a lot for their workers over the decades, and workers in this country are all the better because of the efforts of organised labour.

I make the point again that it is very disappointing that the government would allow its dislike or even hatred of organised labour to result in a bill like this, which is fundamentally bad policy. I say again: the government should ditch this bill. It is a dog of a bill. It is no good. The government should start a conversation and start to work up a policy and draft legislation that would bolster the shipping industry in Australia. We need to turn this around and get from 18 vessels back to 23 vessels like we had in 2012, and get back to 55 vessels like we had in 1995, and even more again so that we have certainty for business, more jobs for Australians and improved national security. Along the way, we need to do everything that can be done to help Tasmania by fixing the cost of Bass Strait. It is crippling my state and this bill is a distraction from it.

See this speech in context