Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill because it is yet another example of a job-destroying piece of legislation from the Turnbull government, which has set itself against working Australia. It is a government by the coalition of the Liberal and National parties, which have as part of their DNA an attitude of setting themselves against working Australia. We see that, and we saw that through the Work Choices legislation under the then Howard government. From the moment this government was elected in 2013, we have seen act after act and decision after decision made by this government and actions taken by this government which have destroyed Australian jobs. This is just another example of that. We saw it in the way the former Treasurer, Treasurer Hockey, goaded the Australian car industry out of the country—an unprecedented action, from a treasurer of this nation, inviting the major car companies of this country to leave, in effect. In my electorate, being a car-making city, we feel the significance of that. We saw it with the decision of Alcoa, again in my electorate, to cease smelting aluminium at its plant at Point Henry.

When these events happen, we see nothing from this government in terms of trying to deal with the economic adjustment which is required by people when major decisions of this kind are made. When Ford made its decision to stop making cars in Australia, the then Labor government acted, on that very day, to put in place a package of adjustment for both Broadmeadows and Geelong. Today, Geelong is yet to see a single dollar dedicated to it for the readjustment that needs to occur in our city by virtue of the decision that was made by Alcoa. This legislation, in relation to the shipping industry, is just another example of that.

Australia needs a shipping industry. That, more than anything else, is why I stand here today opposing this legislation. We need a shipping industry because 99 per cent of the trade back and forth between Australia and the world is done through shipping. Indeed, that shipping back and forth from Australia represents something like 10 per cent of the global trade in shipping. It is a remarkable figure and it explains how significant the shipping industry and the shipping task is in Australia and why, of course, it is so important for us to maintain a shipping industry in Australia. None of this is a surprise. We are an island nation. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world. For so many reasons—economic, environmental, security—it is important that we maintain a shipping industry, particularly in terms of coastal shipping.

Shipping as an industry was on the decline under the Howard government. In 1996, when John Howard was elected Prime Minister, there were 55 Australian flagged vessels plying their trade along the Australian coastline. By the time John Howard lost office in 2007, the number of Australian flagged vessels had been reduced to 21. When we came to office in 2007, we were faced with the task of trying to revitalise this industry that is so critical to Australia's economy and national security. Through a parliamentary inquiry in 2008 and then extensive consultation by the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, we worked to the point of producing a package of reforms that were introduced in 2012—reforms which sought to bring back a shipping industry in this country and sought to plot a path for a viable shipping industry long into the future. We did that because the shipping industry mattered to us as a Labor government, as indeed the industries of this country and working Australia matter to us as Labor members in this place.

That package of reforms included such measures as tax incentives for Australian flagged vessels which also sought to provide encouragement to Australian flagged vessels to employ Australian workers. It involved the creation of a second shipping register, which provided for international carriers to and from Australia. It also sought to put in place workplace packages which focused on developing maritime skills so that we maintained the skills base for this industry, going into the future.

All of this was the result of significant consultation within this important industry. All of this was designed to ensure that we could have a viable shipping industry long into the future. But, from the moment that the coalition were elected in 2013, they set themselves against those reforms and in the process set themselves against the shipping industry and, as I said, against working Australia. We have seen this government make every effort to try and undermine the package of reforms that was put in place by the former Labor government. This bill seeks to rip the heart out of those reforms. That is why I stand here tonight opposing the bill.

This bill, to its enormous discredit, will remove the term 'revitalising Australian shipping' from the objects of Australian coastal shipping. That is an appalling and retrograde step which says everything about the intent of this legislation. It removes any preference, in any form, for Australian flagged vessels along the Australian coastline, in effect putting Australian flagged vessels on the same footing as flag-of-convenience ships that will be on our coastline.

Understanding what comes with an Australian flagged vessel is not rocket science—Australian workers on it; the money generated by that enterprise going into revenue through paying Australian tax; and, importantly, Australian industrial relations conditions persisting as the law, as it were, on such a ship. An Australian flagged vessel is required to employ people under Australian conditions of employment. All of that is placed under threat in circumstances where, by virtue of this bill, an Australian flagged vessel will be put on the same footing as a vessel with a flag of convenience—a vessel which has none of those obligations, a vessel whose enterprise will not see tax being paid into the Australian taxation system. Indeed, the economic modelling which supports this bill and talks about the savings that will come through the associated regulatory changes indicates that 88 per cent of the savings are based on the assumption that 90 per cent of Australian crews on ships doing coastal work will be replaced with crews that will be paid under terms and conditions of employment that would persist in the developing world. In our view that is an utterly unacceptable situation.

It is expected from the government's own modelling that the consequence of this bill will be the termination of employment of people earning Australian conditions of employment, Australian wages, throughout the shipping industry and particularly in places like Tasmania and particularly in the cruise ship sector in northern Australia, in places such as Cairns. As I said earlier, it is a job-destroying piece of legislation. It is an appalling piece of public policy. But it is entirely consistent with the way in which this government has gone about its business from the moment that it was elected. In essence, this legislation represents Work Choices on water. That is what we are talking about here. Right now the industry has a 10,000 strong workforce, and they are the people who will be subject to the effects of this legislation.

The logic of our position is very clear. We are simply saying that, just as Australian conditions apply to road and rail, because of course all those workplaces are in Australia, they should also apply to our blue highway, to coastal shipping, as well. This form of transport should exist on exactly the same terms, on exactly the same playing field, as road and rail. There is a logical sense to it. We would never, as a country, walk down the path of opening up those other modes of transport to the extent that developing world levels of employment existed within them. We would never think of doing that in respect of road and rail and we should not be doing it in respect of sea, and yet that is precisely what this legislation is seeking to do. That is why I stand here this evening opposing it.

Opposing this legislation does not in any way make us an outlier in terms of the accessibility of work on our coastline. Indeed, other countries around the world, for example the US and Canada, Europe and countries like Japan, all seek to regulate the shipping task on their coastline, and they do so bearing in mind that that industry carries with it a significant national interest—a significant national interest in an economic sense and in an environment and security sense as well. In many respects right now, without this legislation, without this these amendments, we already have comparatively open seas in terms of our coastal shipping task which do allow foreign flagged vessels to work along our coastline in circumstances where there is no Australian flagged vessel able to operate. The effect of this legislation, the effect of this bill, were it to be passed through this parliament, would be to see foreign flagged vessels placed on exactly the same footing as Australian flagged vessels, which would be an enormous threat to the ongoing viability of the coastal shipping industry and therefore the shipping industry in this country.

We need a local shipping industry for many reasons. We need it from an economic point of view. As I mentioned earlier, 99 per cent of trade to and from Australia is done via shipping so it is important that we retain a local shipping industry. We need to do it from an environmental point of view. It is no coincidence that most of the recent environmental disasters that we have seen around our shores have occurred by virtue of non-Australian flagged vessels—the Shen Neng in 2010 on the Barrier Reef, the Pacific Adventurer on the Sunshine Coast in 2009 and the China Steel Developer in Mackay earlier this year. All of these were non-Australian flagged vessels, and they caused significant environmental damage. So for environmental reasons it is important that we retain a local shipping industry. We need to do so for security reasons as well. Quite evidently there is a higher risk profile in respect of non-screened crews working on ships around our coastline, and it is much harder to screen crews who are on non-Australian flagged vessels. Again, that is not a particularly difficult point to make but the result of this legislation would be that our security position was reduced. Of course our Navy benefits significantly from having a strong merchant fleet participating in a strong domestic shipping industry. For all these reasons we should be opposing this bill—this bill represents a challenge to the local shipping industry.

See this speech in context