Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I understand that, and I will be brief. I acknowledge the support of the member for Grayndler for this bill, the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015, that is now before the House in this third reading debate. But much of his contribution related to a bill that is being debated in the Senate in the coming hours and the coming days.

I will be terribly disappointed if those Tasmanian senators from all sides do not contemplate supporting the changes. The changes that are before the Senate in respect of the bill which the member opposite referred to—and the changes in 2012, the changes in 2009; and the damage that they did to the island state in the island nation—these changes that have been moved by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure deserve to be considered in all seriousness, because it is about growing the coastal shipping fleet around Australia again. It is about making sure that there are opportunities for employment for people, many of whom will no doubt be members of the MUA. And I would point to what was announced only a couple of weeks ago—the plans and the opportunities that can exist to see the sector grow once more. Since 2012, deadweight tonnage of the coastal fleet around Australia has fallen by 63 per cent. It is dying on the vine, as we sit here. We as a government do not have a choice. And I as a Tasmanian do not have any choice.

I say to the member opposite: I have never said in this place that the changes that were made by the previous government were anything other than well-intentioned. Some of my colleagues on this side have been less magnanimous in that regard. I have never said that they were not well-intentioned, but the fact of the matter is that they have failed. They have not delivered the outcomes that were promised. The opportunity is there to once again look at growing the coastal shipping fleet, through the changes that have been proposed. I feel sure that it will provide the opportunity for local businesses to continue to invest in the sector with confidence. It will bring competition. As has been highlighted by DP World, it will reduce the cost of moving a container from the Port of Burnie in north-west Tasmania to Shanghai by more than half. The figures quoted were these: that the cost will go from $2,800 currently, or thereabouts—by virtue of the requirement to go through the Port of Melbourne—to somewhere between $1,300 and $1,400 a container. And the jobs that will come through that investment—that is $30 million in the Port of Burnie. It will mean new jobs. It will mean more jobs—most likely for members of the MUA.

I would ask Tasmanian Labor senators, and particularly Senator Whish-Wilson—I have a lot of respect for Senator Whish-Wilson; I think somewhere deep down inside him there is a pragmatic bone that exists, and I know it is fighting to come out—and I know that he is often driven into the ground by some of his colleagues—I implore Senator Whish-Wilson to look at this and at the opportunity this provides for our state; not just for jobs offshore on vessels but also for jobs onshore in the expanded port facilities that we will see.

Secondly, I implore them to contemplate other unionised workplaces onshore in my state but also around the country that are being jeopardised by opposing these changes to the legislation that will be before the Senate in due course, whether it be Nyrstar in the member for Denison's electorate, whether it be Norske Skog in my electorate at Boyer in southern Tasmania or whether it be Bell Bay Aluminium. Everybody in this place knows very well the very forthright contributions that were made by Ross Mostogl, the CEO of Bell Bay Aluminium, and the impact the changes in 2012, albeit well intentioned, had on that business.

So I implore those Tasmanian senators. This is the opportunity once again for the coastal shipping fleet to see renewed investment. We are already seeing the possibilities that can occur with the commitments that have been made in recent weeks by DP World. It is not just about those jobs that they are fighting for. I understand why they are fighting for them. It is about what it could cost. For every job that is being suggested will be lost you may well be putting at risk five jobs or 10 jobs in similar unionised workplaces in other parts of the country. That, for me, is unacceptable.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister in particular for the opportunity to make a contribution in response to the shadow minister but also welcome the fact that the shadow minister is, indeed, supporting the legislation before the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

See this speech in context