Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise in opposition to the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, and I am particularly pleased to have been in the chamber for the contribution of my friend the member for Throsby, who touched on a number of very concerning aspects of the bill, not least of which are the environmental risks it presents to Australia and our maritime waters. In joining my colleagues in opposition to this legislation I should make it clear that I am speaking also in support of the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler. I think it is worth touching on that amendment, because it clearly sets out the principles with which we should be approaching this challenge that is before us, in particular noting the very concerning evidence recently given before the Senate inquiry about the engagement of departmental officials in relation to the issue that has had some prominence—the advice given to Mr Milby at North Star Cruises that for his company to compete in Australia under the proposed legislation, the bill we are debating this evening, he should reflag to a foreign state, sack his Australian crew and hire a crew on cheap foreign wages. In light of this as well as other matters, we should be declining to give the bill a second reading.

But the amendment obviously goes further than this and sets out the principles that Labor used to inform our approach to this challenge in the 2012 legislation, working towards the objective of ensuring that this critical Australian industry can operate on a level playing field with foreign competitors and ensuring that our economic, our environmental and our security interests in fostering the local shipping industry are maintained and indeed, where possible, advanced. These are the objectives that we should be concentrating on and, measured against those objectives, as well as the concerning evidence before the Senate inquiry, this bill fails and should be rejected.

It is very interesting, as we navigate our passage from the Abbott government to the Turnbull government, to consider how changes in rhetoric and changes in style appear to be entirely unmatched when it comes to questions of substance. Our new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, has spoken with evident joy of the exciting times in which we—or perhaps he—lives. He has also spoken about improving the quality of policy debate in this place. I wonder if the member for Hughes got that memo, based on his contribution both on the bill and throughout the contribution of the member for Throsby. But I am rather more concerned that the responsible minister for this legislation, the Deputy Prime Minister, seems to have failed to have done so. Whatever the new Prime Minister has said, it appears that his government, like that of Mr Abbott, is bereft of ideas. Its rhetoric, evidenced in this legislation, is completely empty. For this government it seems clear that dismantling the work of Labor governments is as good as it gets, and they never fail to descend to the lowest common denominator. Their answer to everything seems to be reducing labour costs and reducing wages. That is their only solution to every problem.

I looked with some care at the second reading speech of Minister Truss, a second reading contribution that I think can at best be regarded as disingenuous, with the meaningless language of reform and three-word slogans that I thought we had got rid of—the same tired old slogans. When we talk about reducing costs in this bill, we know that those cost reductions are almost entirely, on the government's own evidence, to be found through slashing wages. So we see, in the language of the Deputy Prime Minister, that the government has declared that 'Australia is open for business and these reforms will help reduce the burden on business, open up new opportunities and unlock the potential of our coastal trading routes'. This is a bold claim that is not supported by the government's own material and has scant regard for the human beings, the 10,000 people, directly and indirectly employed in Australia in this industry. Much like the legislation at large, it is also a claim that is not informed by evidence or engaged by any sense of the national interest, whether broadly described, as the member for Grayndler has put it in his amendment, or even more narrowly. It is not concerned about jobs for Australians or security, much less our precious natural environment.

It is also inconsistent with international approaches. The member for Throsby touched on this in looking at a range of comparable nations which have policy objectives very similar to those set out in the legislation that is presently afoot, the 2012 Labor legislation, and very similar approaches to safeguarding their national interests through giving support to domestic shipping industries. These nations include Canada, the European Union and the United States—that market bastion, that example to which we are often taken to by members of this government. New Zealand is another generally favoured example, along with Japan. These regimes are broadly similar in their objectives and also in some of the mechanisms through which those objectives are sought to be given effect to. The system this government proposes will dismantle our shipping industry at cost to Australian industry, at cost to Australian jobs and at risk to Australia's security and at risk to Australia's natural environment. It raises a range of other questions around the so-called change of attitude under the new Prime Minister, particularly as it goes to the wider responsibilities of this minister. I see we have the newly promoted, if I may describe it in those terms, minister for cities at the table, the member for Mayo. I was very pleased to see that portfolio recognised in this government. Hopefully it will assume some of the great Labor legacy in supporting our cities and suburbs through the actions of national government. Again it appears that the comments of the Prime Minister in this regard have not always been echoed by the minister responsible for infrastructure, an issue that is at play here.

But turning back to this bill, it contains three major elements, all of which are deeply problematic. Firstly, and this appears to be its principal concern, it repeals the 2012 reforms implemented by Labor, a broad-based, considered package of reforms aimed at boosting Australian industry. They are a package of reforms that at the very least deserve time to be considered to see how they have fared, particularly as the evidence—such as it is, and recognising that some of the decisions that industry participants make in deals like this take some time to wash through—indicates that these reforms are serving their purpose.

Secondly, the bill would deregulate Australian coastal shipping. Again, as I touched upon earlier, this is a deregulatory agenda that is significantly out of step with those of many comparable nations. In doing so, it would establish a single permit system and expand significantly exemptions from our wage standards applicable here. And, lastly, building on this point: this bill would impose Work Choices on water through extending the non-application of the Fair Work Act. The extent to which the government has sought to render invisible the workers engaged directly and indirectly in this industry, as well as their families, in this debate is extraordinary. They should be heard, and their concerns should be considered as the parliament considers this legislation. I note that the explanatory memorandum suggests that there would be nil financial impact in this regard, but this ignores the direct and indirect impact of these lost jobs, these 2,000 lost jobs—more than the 1,000 on the government's own evidence. I think a larger number is more likely to be borne out. It will particularly impact communities through lost jobs and damage to families. It will impact on the Commonwealth through the social security system as well as less tangible costs. As I started to mention earlier, I think of the impact on particular regional communities, and it will be more significant in places like ports in Tasmania and places like Cairns.

This is legislation that deserves to be rejected by this House and to not proceed through to enactment. We should think about the broader context of shipping to Australia as this parliament has been consumed with important debates about trade, our opportunities in that regard and some of the challenges it poses to us and to Australian businesses. As we are an island nation, shipping is, of course, especially important to Australia. It is how our goods get to market in the rest of the world. It is also an industry that presently employs, directly and indirectly, around 10,000 people. This bill denies those workers a level playing field. It denies the businesses that employ those workers a fair chance to continue to compete.

I want to go to the first component of this bill: the dismantling of the architecture of Labor's 2012 reforms. The Labor government took very seriously the challenges facing shipping. Labor continues to do so now. On this point, let me turn to the pettiness of this government's approach. We see the extent to which the bill before the House narrows the scope of our engagement, narrows the scope of this parliament's vision for the Australian shipping industry. We see a bill that moves away from any commitment to revitalising Australian industry and that dramatically narrows the scope of the legislation.

Labor, on the other hand, took a broader view built around looking to ensure a level playing field for the domestic shipping sector and fair access to this market for Australian businesses. This was a considered look informed by evidence. There was a parliamentary inquiry from 2008—a unanimous parliamentary inquiry, I might add—exhaustive stakeholder engagement in the following years and a real plan, not blind faith in ideology. We saw a series of thoughtful and considered measures to put in place that level playing field, including taxation incentives and an innovative look at the coastal shipping regime. We saw the shipping register. We saw the workers involved in this industry, through the Maritime Workforce Development Forum, looking to skills development to safeguard jobs for the future. We saw the legislation that took up all those elements of the national interest, those three principles of supporting our economic development, protecting our environment and ensuring, where possible, national security.

This considered approach deserves time to see how it is going. As I touched on earlier, key decisions and key investments are not made overnight. This is particularly so when there is evidence that has been produced to the processes of this parliament that the new arrangements are working. The case for change is not founded on evidence. It is not founded on reality. It is founded on ideology.

I turn now to the deregulation aspect of this bill. Again, it is blind faith. When we consider the references to red tape, we see echoes in the deflating balloon that is the government's red-tape repeal legislation at large as ever more grandiose claims are unsupported by any evidence in the real world. I note again that 88 per cent of the claimed economic benefits to flow from this legislation are said to come from reduced labour costs. This is from the explanatory memorandum. When we consider the regulatory impact statement and the cost-benefit analysis, there is very little in them to commend them. According to the Australia Institute, in the deregulatory benefits we are looking at numbers of much less than one per cent of the industry's turnover.

Again we see a narrow and ideological approach to the assessment that ignores the reality of the challenges facing these industries in a narrow, economic sense—leaving aside those wider aspects of the national interest challenge. We see significant job losses—very significant job losses of good, high-wage jobs—for very little economic benefit, if there is any at all. We also see in this bill more than simply an approach which is heedless of workers and their families' concerns. It is an approach which is deeply concerning, consistent with the evidence, the shocking revelations, about the advice given by departmental officials to businesses, heedless of Australian values, heedless of the concerns of Australian workers.

As the member for Grayndler said in his speech in this second reading debate, our approach to the issues of industrial relations here and elsewhere in the transport and logistics industry in Australia should be very simple: if you work in Australia, you should be paid in accordance with Australian law. You should also be entitled to the benefits of the other conditions that Australian law affords Australian workers. It is deeply concerning that this bill plans to alter the workplace relations environment so that only a very limited number of seafarers would be covered by the Fair Work Act. It also removes the requirements around collective agreements being registered.

This is an approach that, again, is not consistent with that of comparable nations. It is consistent with a blind, reflexive hatred of unionism, a lack of concern for workers and a view about productivity that is all about a race to the bottom in circumstances where we know that labour productivity is not the problem in the Australian economy. Labour productivity is doing okay. Wage growth, on the other hand, is not. For these reasons and so many more we must reject Work Choices on water. We must look at an approach to this legislation which deals squarely with all the dimensions of the national interest. We must continue to follow the Labor approach and reject the bill that is before the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context