Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds might like to pick a number out of the air. Ten? 'Was it 10, Senator Smith?' No, it was not 10, Senator Reynolds. Was it nine? No, it was not nine. Was it eight? No, it was not eight. Was it seven? It was not seven. Was it six? It was not six. Was it five? It was not five. It was not four. It was not three. It was not two. It was not even one. No ship was registered on the Australian International Shipping Register. It is the catastrophe of the mining tax by another name. It is another piece of burdensome Labor Party regulation that has driven up business costs and failed to deliver on its anticipated outcomes.

Let us ask ourselves: why has it failed? Again, we need to go to Labor's motives on this particular issue. The plain truth is that the so-called reforms introduced by Labor were pretty much a wholesale capitulation to Labor's political mates in the Maritime Union of Australia—no surprises there. We all know, of course, that the MUA have fallen on particularly hard times. Their chant may well be, 'MUA, here to stay,' but, as we are all aware, they are now in merger talks with the CFMEU to form a militant superunion.

There was further evidence recently of the MUA's desperation in Western Australia, when that union spent a not inconsiderable amount of time—and, dare I say, members' money—pursuing a coverage application before the Fair Work Commission. Their argument was that the employees of a logistics company who prepared for delivery in the offshore oil and gas industry should be ruled to be 'waterside workers'. That is a very long bow to draw. That is a very, very long bow to draw, and I will just demonstrate what I mean. There are workers at storage and logistics facilities located a considerable distance from wharves or from the water, and the MUA have been trying to argue that they should have the right to cover these workers. As the Fair Work Commissioner rightly noted in dismissing the application:

To disturb the plain meaning of "waterside worker" would be to characterise work performed, in any location, which ultimately results in goods or materials being loaded onto a ship as the work of a "waterside worker".

Plainly, that would be a ridiculous situation, yet such is the desperation of a union movement that is losing its relevance by the day.

This legislation is about getting the balance right. It is about recognising that laws governing our shipping network need to promote economic efficiency. They need to genuinely protect workers—and Senator Abetz mentioned that in his contribution—and of course they need to actually promote economic opportunity and job creation for Australians. Our laws should not be used to try to create political and organisational advantage for particular unions. That is not their role.

I think some people have misunderstood the full impact on jobs and on industries associated with coastal shipping and have underestimated the significant growth to jobs and the economic opportunity that arise from a more competitive coastal shipping arrangement. They have misunderstood what the regulatory impact statement has been trying to say, but for the sake of this debate I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

I will keep my contributions short. For me the merits of this particular piece of legislation are clear and obvious. Economic reform is important. It is certainly in the interests of Tasmania. It is in the interests of Western Australia. The Harper review in its own way will make a considerable contribution to competition and productivity in our country over time, but, with regard to this particular issue, this is a necessary and very worthy piece of economic reform and should be embraced, most particularly by Labor senators from Tasmania.