Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As we have heard from many speakers this evening, Australia is an island nation, unique in being the only country in the world to occupy its own continent. If you were to superimpose a map of Australia over a map of the continental United States, you would see that they are about the same size, but in terms of population we are only about one-fourteenth the size of the United States—about the same as the great state of Texas. My home state of Tasmania is an island state, so the issue of shipping is of vital importance to both Australia and Tasmania's future prosperity. Coastal shipping helps ensure that we optimise the benefits of globalisation and growing trade, particularly in the much heralded Asian century. As the key drivers of global economic prosperity transition from the north Atlantic to Asia, Australia, sitting there beautifully positioned astride the Indian and Pacific oceans, is well placed to take advantage.

My point is that readily available and efficient coastal shipping and international shipping will help ensure that quality Tasmanian produce and manufactured goods can serve growing Asian middle-class markets from India to China, which, in the next 15 years, are projected to grow from 500 million people to 1.7 billion people. That is why I am so pleased to make a contribution to the debate on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which helps to untangle the mess left by the Labor-Greens government's legislative changes in 2012.

I can recall our announcement in April 2014 of an options paper on this issue, which elicited public comment from Bell Bay Aluminium, one of the biggest businesses in my electorate of Bass. The general manager, Mr Ray Mostogl, said in a media release on 8 April 2014 that, following the introduction of Labor's coastal trading act, Bell Bay Aluminium faced a 63 per cent increase in freight rates. He noted that Labor's licensing arrangements:

… have led to greatly reduced shipping options and competition in the market and an associated increase in the cost of shipping. Bell Bay Aluminium is pleased to see that the current government review is looking to address the competitiveness of services and shipping costs.

He went on to say, perhaps most importantly:

Freight has been identified as one of the key means to keep the Bell Bay Aluminium smelter viable.

What you hear from Mr Mostogl is that there was greatly reduced competition in the market, fewer shipping options and increased costs to his business in the immediate aftermath of Labor's 2012 coastal shipping laws. Perhaps of greatest concern is the link that he draws between these impacts and the very viability of Bell Bay Aluminium. That raises some pretty major red flags about jobs and other human consequences in northern Tasmania. There is no doubt that Labor's 2012 coastal shipping changes added greater pressure to jobs and livelihoods at Bell Bay. We are talking here about real people in the beautiful northern Tasmanian coastal community of George Town and surrounding areas. These are proud, hardworking people who felt the adverse effects of these ill-considered changes—yet another kick in the guts for a community that had experienced more than its fair share from 16 years of state Labor and Labor-Greens government in Hobart.

What makes this situation worse is that, in 2012, Canberra's Labor-Greens government only added to their problems with these ill-considered shipping laws. Tasmania's interests were sidelined, and Bell Bay Aluminium's interests were sidelined, by Labor-Greens governments led by Lara Giddings and Julia Gillard. It is important because we are not talking here about some small employer. I am hesitant to say it, but Bell Bay Aluminium is one of the few large employers we have left in northern Tasmania. It is a significant employer and a significant taxpayer. It supports the employment of more than 1,000 Tasmanians. It uses 25 per cent of Tasmania's total electricity and it contributes almost $700 million each year to Tasmania's gross state product.

So, when the General Manager of Bell Bay Aluminium said to the Productivity Commission that Labor's coastal shipping changes caused 'a 63 per cent increase in freight rates', why didn't Labor listen? When Mr Mostogl gave testimony that leaving ships idle at ports for a day before loading can commence, as demanded by the Maritime Union of Australia, costs foreign vessels about $10,000 a day and Australian ships more than $20,000 a day, why didn't Labor listen? When exporters said that freight rates from Tasmania to Queensland in the first year of Labor's coastal trading act almost doubled to $30 a tonne, while rates elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere remained at about half that at $17 a tonne, why didn't Labor listen? When the fleet of major Australian registered ships—over 2,000 deadweight tonnes—halved from 30 vessels in 2006-07 to just 15 in 2013-14, and the number of ships on Australian transitional general licences dropped from 16 to just eight, why didn't Labor listen? When there was an over 60 per cent decline in the carrying capacity of the major Australian coastal trading fleet in the first two years of the former government's coastal trading act, why didn't Labor listen? When there were almost 1,000 fewer coastal voyages and almost two million fewer tonnes of freight moved by foreign vessels in the year after Labor's laws came in, why didn't Labor listen? When demurrage rates tripled from $15,000 to $45,000, why didn't Labor listen?

In the member for Perth's contribution, I heard her talk about the importance of maritime skills, knowledge and attitudes to the future of Australia's productivity, but how do any of those things that I have just described help people in the maritime industry keep their jobs? How does the halving of the coastal trading fleet lead to more jobs for people in the maritime industry? The undeniable fact is that not only did the cost for bulk shippers like Bell Bay Aluminium go up but their shipping options dramatically decreased, and the projections into the future are no better. From 2010 to 2030, under what Labor has in place, Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent, but coastal shipping will only increase by 15 per cent. Think of what that means for a maritime nation like Australia and an island state like Tasmania. I want to hear those on the other side explain to me how halving of the fleet after Labor's laws came in is good for jobs in our maritime nation and my maritime state. How does a much-reduced share of the national freight task help jobs in the industry? How can those people who are studying at the Australian Maritime College in my home city of Launceston look to the future with those sorts of metrics and think about a bright, rosy maritime industry in the aftermath of Labor's 2012 laws? Of course, they cannot, and those opposite who continue to cheer for this legislative gift to the Maritime Union of Australia should listen to those actually reliant on coastal shipping, who see these ill-considered laws as yet more economic vandalism.

But, to add insult to injury, Labor's former coalition partners, the Greens, not only cheered for these laws but actually insulted the big employers and the big taxpayers. In comments to the Launceston Examiner, recently retired Greens leader Christine Milne denigrated Bell Bay Aluminium and three other major industrial companies in Tasmania as having 'exaggerated' because they 'want a handout'. What callous indifference to Tasmanian jobs shown by the Labor Party and former Greens leader Christine Milne, who appear happy to sacrifice Tasmanian jobs on the altar of union-Greens ideology!

So, for my home state of Tasmania, fixing this Labor mess is of vital importance, and the productivity Commission agrees, noting in its recent report on Tasmanian freight:

Given its reliance on sea transport, Tasmania is particularly affected by inefficiencies embedded in coastal shipping regulation. This regulation should be reviewed and reformed as a matter of priority.

That concern is echoed by the Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council, who say in their submission that Tasmanian businesses 'are the most exposed in Australia to the regulatory framework for coastal shipping which is in urgent need of reform'. The Launceston Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said about Labor's reforms:

… Launceston and Northern Tasmania has suffered considerably from increased costs and timeliness for exports and imports of freight as a result of the enacting of the Coastal Shipping Legislation—

that Labor brought in.

So, as you can see, Labor's coastal shipping legislation is a cumbersome, protectionist regime that reduces our competitiveness. It has no friends in those businesses reliant on getting their goods to market in a timely and efficient way. It should have no friends in an island nation like Australia and an island state like Tasmania.

Perhaps of greatest concern is that Australia's coastal trading sector is at a crucial way point. By making coastal shipping more competitive, the government is supporting the growth and expansion of jobs in Tasmania's manufacturing, mining, horticultural and agricultural industries. So the purpose of this bill is to implement much-needed reforms to the complex regulatory framework for coastal shipping, easing the damage Labor has inflicted on Northern Tasmania and other coastal shipping centres around the country.

The bill's central feature is a much-simplified permit system to reduce costs to business and grow their access to competitive international shipping. The bill reaffirms the government's commitment to greater efficiency and competitiveness in Australia's shipping industry. Through the reforms in this bill, we help ensure greater access and greater choice to shipping services in a more open and competitive market, because, as the four free trade deals that Minister Andrew Robb has negotiated clearly demonstrate, we operate in a global context, so every bit of efficiency and productivity we can build into that global connectivity framework is vitally important.

Contrary to the claims of some members opposite, there is no change to the rigorous maritime safety and environmental laws that apply to ships operating in Australian waters. The bill also has built-in protections for Australian workers. Wages and conditions for all seafarers on foreign ships operating primarily in the Australian coastal trade are covered by domestic workplace relations arrangements.

For Tasmania, which is increasingly benefitting from tourism traffic, this bill also helps ensure greater access by cruise ship passengers to my home state and other coastal cities around the country. Restoring vibrancy to coastal shipping means a continuing and, I hope, growing role for people with the maritime skills, knowledge and experience to man tugs, supervise harbour traffic, and fill the myriad other jobs in this industry. That is why the bill contains measures to ensure that ships trading predominantly in Australia have Australians undertaking the key skilled positions on board.

The member for Lyons, who spoke before me, mentioned some of the estimates we have heard from the Maritime Union of Australia and the Australia Institute about job losses. That Australia Institute report—which was in fact commissioned by the MUA and repeated in their own submission—is a significant overestimate of the number of jobs that might be lost. I think the member for Lyons made a very good point when he said that we need to focus on the value of jobs in all industries, not just in the maritime industry, and in my home state of Tasmania, where horticulture is about to lose that 30 per cent tariff and become much more competitive in those growing Asian markets in our region, that we need to think about jobs in manufacturing, resources, cement, aluminium, fertiliser, petroleum, sugar, grain and many other products that could use coastal shipping services if they were more competitive. So I say to the member for Perth and the members opposite that those skills in the maritime domain are important, but so are the skills in those other industries.

In concluding, the case for coastal shipping reforms is clear. Labor's so-called reforms have failed coastal shipping, and unless we act now businesses relying on coastal shipping will be disadvantaged. Without changes to economic and regulatory settings, shipping will not be able to deliver the competitive, efficient services that Australian businesses need and that Tasmanian businesses need, and that has a knock-on negative effect. We need this change, and it must happen as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context