Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying last night, the BCA estimate there are 90,000 manufacturing jobs in Australia relying on coastal shipping—jobs in cement, oil refining, steel and aluminium—relying on a service costing more than double that which our international competitors face. As I said, when these industries fail—when they go offshore—then not only do the manufacturing jobs go but so do the shipping jobs, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Let us have a look at what has been happening: there was a 63 per cent reduction in deadweight tonnage on the Australian register in the two years following the Labor government legislation; the number of ships in this category fell from 30 to 15 during the period of the Labor government; the number of ships on Australian transitional licences halved in that time; and, most tellingly, shipping's share of the total Australian freight has fallen from 27 per cent to 17 per cent since the turn of the century. What a disaster.

In the rest of the world, sea freight is seen as the most efficient way to shift commodities over large distances—and so it should be in Australia. We have large distances. One of the great challenges of this nation is the distances between our production and consumption markets. And, largely, Australians live on the coast—we live near the biggest freight-line in the world; it is called the sea. You do not have to fix up the rail; you do not have to grade the roads; all you have to do is put boats on it. It should be the most efficient way to ship freight, but in Australia it is not; that is because we have priced ourselves out of the game.

As I said earlier on, I do not actually think it is because Australian workers are overpaid; it is because a workplace has been engineered where their performance is way below what is acceptable on a world standing, and their unions and their companies need to sit down together and get a more efficient outcome. We are more likely to get that if there is some competitive pressure placed upon both those unions and the companies that employ the workers, because in fact they are operating a closed shop—the companies themselves—and it is their customers that are paying the price. And, as I said, the price is the jobs of their workers. I commend the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like those on our side of the House, I too rise to oppose the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 and support the amendments that were made by the member for Grayndler. This legislation that is before the House at the moment seeks to make a substantial review of the Australian coastal shipping industry. On 25 June, the coalition brought into the House reforms to establish a single permit system. The granting of this will allow international shipping to be able to access our coastal trade for periods of 12 months. They will be able to do that and they will be able to compete with Australian based traders. But this will give them unfettered access to Australian ports to be able to ply their trade.

This bill also seeks not only to deregulate Australian domestic shipping by removing a preference for Australian flagged vessels that are crewed by Australian operators but also to exempt foreign vessels from paying Australian wages and from observing Australian industrial and other safety regulations. You have just heard people on the other side say that this was not about wages and, in fact, they do not think Australians are overpaid, yet they are going to introduce into this system something that allows foreign vessels to come in, pay foreign seamen at a fraction of Australian wages and not observe Australian safety standards, and they say that is a level playing field for competition. About what else are going to say that? I am sure they would not talk that way when they talk about their farm blocks or the businesses that they seek to protect; only when they are talking about Australian workers applying themselves on the maritime coastal trade of this country. It is okay for any country to come in and compete—any third-world country, anyone who wants to bring in a ship that is not necessarily going to be of the same standard of maintenance as an Australian vessel. 'That is okay. You can come in. You can compete for those jobs in Australian ports. You can compete to apply yourself on the Australian coastal trade.' They are effectively going to dismantle an Australian shipping industry as a consequence.

They say this is all about enhancing trade and our economy. It is going to put a lot of people out of work. It is going to make it difficult for a lot of people who study to become maritime workers, whether they are officers on ships, deck hands or whatever. That will be a category of workers that is obsolete in this country. Currently, under the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act—which was introduced, by the way, by a Labor government in 2012—there is a three-tiered licensing system that essentially requires people seeking to move freight by sea to give a preference, where possible, to Australian based shipping. When an Australian vessel is not available, a foreign vessel can operate in Australian waters on a temporary licence. Under this approach, Australian maritime operators are effectively given the first right of refusal. Interestingly, when a foreign vessel operator does get a temporary licence, they are required to pay their crew at Australian rates of pay. They are also required to observe all Australian regulations and safety conditions. In other words, it maintains a level playing field when operating on Australian coastal routes. It does not give a competitive advantage to foreign flagged vessels by being able to undercut the domestic maritime industry by paying foreign workers less and by not observing Australian workplace conditions and standards.

The coastal trading act was part of a broader reform that was aimed at revitalising the Australian shipping industry. The objective of the act to was to provide a regulatory framework for coastal trading in Australia which contributes to the broader Australian economy, enhances the efficiency and reliability of Australian shipping and maximises the use of Australian vessels registered under the Australian General Shipping Register. Bear in mind, the shipping industry was in a serious state of decline under the last Liberal government. Under John Howard, the number of Australian flagged vessels working the domestic coastal trade of this country plummeted from 55 vessels in 1996, when the Howard government took office, to 21 vessels in 2007. It fell to Labor to review the industry and to propose reforms based on economic, environmental and security interests. The eventual reforms were made in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the 2008 parliamentary inquiry, within which the then National, Paul Neville, played a substantial part, and I credit him for the role that he took as the former member for Hinkler. I hope the current member for Hinkler looked at the words used by Paul Neville in looking at protecting Australian jobs.

It also followed substantial consultations that took place between 2010 and 2012, immediately prior to the bill being introduced into this House. The Liberal government has once again launched an attack on Australian workers by seeking to repeal the 2012 coastal trading laws by again undercutting Australian shipping by putting thousands of Australian jobs at risk, if not destroying the industry itself. If this legislation is passed, the inevitable result will be the closure of Australian businesses that own and operate Australian ships, as a consequence of unfair trading from foreign flagged vessels. We are going to contract out to other nations the ability to operate our coastal run. We will become dependent on someone else to do our work under this legislation. When a ship flies an Australian flag, not only is it subject to Australian standards of safety, environmental compliance and taxation but it also must comply with our industrial relations laws, whether the ship is operating on only our coastal run or internationally as well.

However, under the coalition's official modelling of the legislation before the House, we will see significant exemptions provided to foreign vessels on Australian coastal trading, including the application of an exemption from paying Australian domestic wage structures. What we will see as a consequence of these proposals is the removal of Australian workplace standards on foreign vessels. We will see the sacking of Australian workers who work not only on Australian vessels but also on foreign vessels, because they will not have to be paid Australian wages. Australian jobs will have gone. It will also impact on those in this country who are on temporary work visas. They too will be paid Third World rates of pay in Australian waters.

This entirely defeats the purpose of securing a local maritime skills base for Australia, because in the future there will no longer be an industry for Australians to work in. I understand that our shipping industry currently employs around 10,000 workers, whether directly or indirectly. As a consequence of this legislation at least 2,000 direct maritime jobs will go, and I am not sure how many more thousands will indirectly follow as a result of terminating this Australian industry.

As we all know, Australia currently has the highest unemployment rate since the global financial crisis. We are sitting at about 7.9 per cent. Interestingly, unemployment has increased two per cent since this government came to office. Just as they did with respect to Australian manufacturing, and just as they did with respect to goading Holden to leave manufacturing in Australia, followed by Ford, just as they chased those industries out they are now chasing out the Australia maritime industry.

If anything, the government's current policies and reforms should be aimed at boosting Australia's economic and security interests, while providing opportunities for Australian job seekers. However, these proposed reforms we have before us today do nothing about that. I have to say that they are not terribly shy about how these reforms will come about, because they have gone out of their way to tell Australian industry how to get around this. They made it very clear to an Australian operator, Mr Milby, who for many years has operated North Star Cruises, which is located in the Kimberley region of northern Western Australia. He was somewhat concerned about what it would mean to allow foreign vessels to come in and undercut his business and put him out of business. He got advice from the government. Do you know what it was? They advised Mr Milby that the best way to remain competitive under these changes was to register his vessel overseas, get rid of his Australian crew and hire foreign workers on lower rates of pay. That is great advice from an Australian government: telling an Australian owned and operated business how you can be competitive under these changes by sacking your Australian workers. If they call that reform, when it comes to hard decisions how could anyone trust what they do?

We have seen what they proposed with Work Choices. They made it legal, for the very first time in Australian history, to pay people below the award rate of pay. And they thought that was a workplace reform. The only people who were affected by that were the people who were dependent on their wages—they were price-takers. They were the low-paid workers; the people on minimum rates of pay. They couldn't say, 'If you don't pay me I am going to go to another job.' They were the price-takers of our economy. They had to take whatever was offered. They were the workers whom these people, when they were last in power, sought to penalise.

We are seeing the same thing played out now with their talk about penalty rates. They think it is all fair and that penalty rates may be a thing of the past and we should be changing our views about them. None of the people here live on penalty rates. None of the people here need to balance their home budget on penalty rates. But I will tell you that there are plenty of people in my electorate who do.

It is just not sound that we again attack an Australian industry. Given our coastline, given the points of trade into our community, given the points of security for our island based nation, it is just not fundamentally sound that we go out and dismantle an Australian industry that services our nation. We are going to replace that with domestic coastal shipping being provided by foreign vessels flagged under a foreign power. We have a chink in the armour of our sovereignty and in being able to look after ourselves. We are going to contract that out to somebody else.

I support the amendments by the member for Grayndler and I am very much opposed to what has been put to the House in this legislation. I encourage the government to rethink their position.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a great pleasure to follow the member for Fowler, a very generous supporter of my predecessor, Mr Neville. I thank him for his words of support. I rise to speak in support of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. The bill will help to make the Australian shipping industry more competitive and efficient. I note the comments of the member for Fowler on Mr Neville's previous involvement in previous committees, but the reality is very straightforward. The legislation that was put forward by Labor, and enacted, simply has not worked. In fact, it has had the opposite effect, as we have had large decreases in Australian coastal shipping. I am a common sense person and a practical person. If things do not work you need to make changes. That is the harsh reality of the world.

This government is committed to ensuring Australia is open for business, so that we can grow our economy and create jobs. That is why we have signed free trade agreements with China, Japan, and South Korea. The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, the biggest global trade deal in 20 years, will improve Australian trade across the 12 countries that make up 40 per cent of the global economy. The full benefits of these agreements will be reached only if we have the networks and services to support trade. Global connectivity is key to creating opportunities. As an island nation, shipping is essential to Australia's prosperity.

For too long, companies wanting to move goods or passengers by sea have had to deal with a complex and burdensome licensing systems. The reforms contained in this bill will help reduce the burden on business, open up new opportunities and unlock the potential of our coastal trading routes. Under the previous Labor government, the fleet of major Australian registered ships—over 2,000 tonnes dead weight—with coastal licences was in sharp decline. They have plummeted from 30 vessels in 2006-07 to just 15 in 2014. As I said, the proof is in the pudding when it comes to the reality of the changes that Labor made previously. There has been a sharp reduction in Australian vessels; we need to act and we need to make these changes. Between 2000 and 2012, while the volume of freight across Australia actually grew by 57 per cent, shipping's share of the Australian freight task fell from about 27 per cent to just under 17 per cent. That is a massive reduction. Between 2010 and 2030, Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent, but coastal shipping is only forecast to increase by 15 per cent. It is the great ocean highway. It is an opportunity for us to reduce road and significant other areas of transport. Over the first two years of the former government's coastal trading act, there was a 63 per cent decline in the carrying capacity of the major Australian coastal trading fleet.

As explained by the Deputy Prime Minister in his second reading speech, evidence shows that Labor's legislation increased the price of coastal shipping services but failed to improve the quality and availability of those services. Bell Bay Aluminium reported a 63 per cent increase in shipping freight costs from Tasmania to Queensland in just the first year of the 2012 regime—from $18.20 a tonne in 2011 to $29.70 a tonne in 2012. As someone who comes from a business background, I can say that you cannot sustain those types of increases. A 63 per cent increase in freight costs in just one year is simply unsustainable and it costs Australian jobs. It is absolutely alarming that it is cheaper to ship sugar from Thailand to Australia than it is to ship Australian sugar around our own coastline. As someone who has been involved with the sugar industry since the age of five, I know that this is an absolutely diabolical outcome for Australian growers, Australian millers and all the people associated with sugar. Across the Queensland coast, there are major sugar storage facilities which rely on shipping.

In my electorate of Hinkler, in the city of Bundaberg, the sleeping giant for our economy is the Bundaberg port. There are enormous opportunities for us to grow and diversify our local economy. The Bundaberg port has real opportunity in the future. We have had announcements from companies such as Knauf, an international plasterboard manufacturing company, that it will build a $70 million manufacturing plant at the Bundaberg port, subject to a few conditions. One of those is the supply of gas. This is unusual, I am sure, but I congratulate the new Labor state government on recognising how important that infrastructure is and maintaining the previous state government's commitment—because, without that gas pipeline, this project would not go ahead. It will create 200 to 300 jobs in construction and around 65 full-time positions and add some two per cent to the local GDP. That is an enormous addition to our local economy. The Bundaberg port has just started to export sand, which is a new opportunity for a local producer, and, of course, with the new gas line I am sure other businesses out there will be attracted to the port facility for opportunities for manufacturing.

But sugar is Queensland's largest agricultural crop by volume and value. With 80 per cent of Australia's sugar exported overseas, it is also Australia's seventh largest agricultural export. Australia's sugar exports were worth $1.4 billion in the financial year before last, making us the third largest supplier in the world. I congratulate Minister Robb on signing the TPP. Whilst our growers have not been glowing in their endorsement, they recognise that it is a significant improvement on our current access to the US market. I have spoken to my local growers, they are satisfied that we have done everything we could and I congratulate the minister on his work. This industry also employs 50,000 people, and nearly all of those are located in regional centres and regional areas—not just the farmers but the people who supply machinery and provide fertiliser and all of the add-on services. It is an incredibly large and important industry for the Queensland economy. Thousands of people in my electorate are reliant on the sugar industry to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table for their kids. It is an industry which has been around for over 100 years and, I hope, will continue strongly into the future.

When it comes to coastal shipping and this bill, we need to act now. Without change, shipping will not be able to deliver the internationally competitive and efficient services that Australian businesses and farmers desperately need. The main focus of the bill is a greatly simplified permit system that will reduce costs to business and enhance access to competitive international shipping services.

While we talk about those opportunities, I would also like to speak about the opportunity for a submarine maintenance base at the Bundaberg port. This is something which has been put forward for consideration by the Defence white paper, which I am sure will be released soon. I encourage the new defence minister to look at this opportunity. It certainly stacks up. It has been assessed by people who have considerable experience in defence. It is a location where it is actually cheap to live. There is lots of housing, there is plenty of available land and the local facilities are second to none. There is a real opportunity to put that base in Bundaberg.

We are simplifying the rules for moving cargo, simply because we must. Labor's laws have failed—as I have explained in this speech today, they have simply failed. If we do not take action, there will be even less coastal shipping for Australian flagged ships. Australia's rigorous maritime safety and environmental laws will continue to apply to all ships operating in Australian waters. The bill also has built-in protections for Australian workers. This is a brief contribution, but thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. It is a blatant and brutal attack on Australia's workers. In some countries religion, in some countries language and in some countries culture divides the major political parties. In Australia, it is always industrial relations. Since the Labor Party was formed, those parties which call themselves conservatives or liberals have constantly attacked workers and their representatives. This piece of legislation is yet another blatant and brutal attack on the Australian workforce and their representatives. It threatens 10,000 jobs and endangers the Australian shipping industry, an industry which is absolutely vital for Australia's economic, environmental and security interests. It abandons Labor's reforms to revitalise the Australian shipping industry before these reforms had time to work and puts nothing in their place. It deregulates the Australian shipping industry and removes preference for Australian flagged and crewed ships to operate around our coast. It permits foreign flagged ships to work Australian waters for longer periods before their workers are subject to Australian law—the Fair Work Act wage and conditions standards. I will repeat that: it basically permits foreign flagged ships to work in Australian waters for longer periods before their workforce is subject to Australian law in relation to wage and conditions standards.

The legislation is nothing more than the Liberal government's latest attempt to float Work Choices. That is what it is about: bringing back an industrial relations system that was expeditiously and effectively overturned by the Australian public at the 2007 federal election. The coalition parties, the National and Liberal parties, have not learnt. They have not learnt one little bit from that defeat. They are going to try to bring Work Choices onto our national blue highway. The importance of this highway to our economy could not be clearer. We are an island nation. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world—longer than the coastlines of the United States, China and Mexico. We depend on shipping for 99 per cent of our international trade. The latest data from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics reveals that 1.2 billion tonnes of cargo moved across Australian waters in 2012-13—an 8.8 per cent increase on the previous year.

We, on the Labor side, recognise that a viable shipping industry is absolutely crucial for Australia's economic, environmental and security interests, but not every government does. When we came to power in 2007, the shipping industry was in decline. The industry—like so many areas of the Australian economy, community and society—had suffered and shrunk under years of Howard government neglect. In 11 years of that government, from 1996 to 2007, the number of Australian flagged vessels working our domestic trade routes had more than halved, dropping from 55 to 21. So we took action to repair this. We made a commitment to do it. Just as we committed to, and put funding into, overturning the neglect in hospitals, schools, highways and telecommunications, we took action to revitalise the Australian shipping industry.

Labor governments invest in vital infrastructure to make sure our schools, hospitals, telecommunications and highways—whether it is coastline, rail or road—are improved. Over a three-year period, from 2010 through to 2012, we consulted with stakeholders and made sure that we engaged in a parliamentary process to give both sides of politics, as well as a parliamentary committee, the opportunity to examine what then became the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012. We engaged in extensive stakeholder consultation. We crafted those reforms based on the recommendations of that parliamentary inquiry.

We were about bolstering the local shipping industry and helping to make sure it effectively competed with overseas competition. We required companies shipping goods between domestic ports to seek an Australian ship in the first instance. However, our reforms allowed the participation of foreign owned ships if an Australian ship was not available. Those reforms included the following: taxation incentives for Australian flagged ships to encourage employment of Australian seafarers, a new 'second register' with tax benefits for ships engaged predominantly in international trade, coastal shipping reform and a workplace package focused on maritime skills development. Labor governments often focus on skills development, but coalition governments always seem to be letting the market determine those issues. Labor governments always seem to be making sure that the skills, talents and abilities of our workforce are enhanced through government initiation and action in consultation with industry.

These reforms needed time to work. They needed a government that recognised and defended Australia's national interests in terms of shipping. We did not get that when the coalition government came to power; we did not get that at all. We have seen that the Abbott-Turnbull Liberal government had vowed to repeal Labor's reforms. The government's hostility towards these reforms was clear from the start—it is not a stretch to say that. The government has dealt with the Australian shipping industry with the same callous disregard it has shown in relation to the renewable energy industry.

However, the bill we are debating today goes beyond simply abandoning Labor's reforms. It deregulates Australia's domestic shipping industry, removing preference for Australian flagged and crewed ships to operate around our coastlines. There is a single permit system authorising foreign flagged ships to work the Australian coast for 12-month periods under the legislation. This single permit system will allow and encourage so-called flag-of-convenience ships—ships which fly the flag of a country other than the country of ownership—to compete against Australian flagged ships.

However, there is a crucial difference between a ship that flies an Australian flag and one that does not, and I will outline a few of those. Australian flagged ships are subject to Australian standards of safety and environmental compliance; flag-of-convenience ships are not. Australian flagged ships operate under Australian taxation and industrial relations laws at port and in the open sea; flag-of-convenience ships do not. Australian flagged ships employ Australians and must pay them Australian wages; flag-of-convenience ships do not and will not.

Our laws regulating flag-of-convenience shipping in Australian waters are in our national interest. They are not unique. Canada, Japan, the United States and the European Union countries all do this. They have comparable laws that strongly regulate their coastal shipping to protect their national interests. In America, they have the 90-year-old Jones Act, which bans foreign ships and crews from US domestic shipping routes. All attempts, by a number of people, to change that have failed.

So, what is the government doing? The government knows that deregulating our shipping industry will cause the wholesale loss of jobs. We also know that, because of the work that has been done by the Australian Institute in its submission to the inquiry that looked into the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. The cost-benefit analysis of the government's bill that was undertaken by the Australian Institute estimates that only 88 Australian seafarer jobs will remain under the department's preferred option for policy change included in the legislation that is before the chamber today.

The government modelling assumes significant job losses in Tasmania and in the Australian cruise line sector based out of Cairns in Queensland. I am surprised that the Tasmanian Liberal representatives were speaking on this bill, as well as any LNP members from Queensland speaking in relation to this, bearing in mind the impact on the tourism industry, which has so suffered by virtue of government action—both the Campbell Newman Liberal government, which was dispatched by Queenslanders at the end of January this year, and the current government that sits opposite us. In fact, 88 per cent of the claimed 'deregulatory savings' from this bill are from the replacement of Australian wage standards with Third World wage standards. How low can those opposite want Australian wages to go? That is where the savings are coming from. It is not red-tape reduction. It is actually a lowering of standards—of wages and conditions—for workers who work in this sector. It is a heartless calculation of 'deregulatory savings' when you remember that over 10,000 Australians work directly or indirectly in the industry.

What this government is doing today through this legislation is all about making deregulatory savings, and the way they are going to get them is to cut wages for those people who work in the sector. They know it. The explanatory memorandum says it. They know what this is about. But one after another the speakers on that side of the chamber, in the government, have fudged this and have actually not mentioned it at all, when it is crystal clear from the government's own documentation, which we have seen, that that is how they are going to do it. They are going to cut wages and conditions in the same way that the Howard government cut wages and conditions with Work Choices. And the Australian people dispatched them, in November 2007.

This bill also significantly extends to 183 days each year the time for which foreign flagged ships can operate in Australian waters before they are subject to Australia's workplace standards. It ushers in the prospect of Third World wages in the Australian coastal shipping trade. It will see Australian workers sacked and replaced with 90 per cent foreign crews paid at far lower rates and not subject to Australian laws on wages and working conditions. While the government has modelled the 'deregulatory savings' on the basis of slashing Australian wages and conditions, it has not modelled the cost of job losses in local communities, up and down the coast and in Tasmania as well. We have three Liberals over there on that side who are from Tasmania and who are going to vote for this legislation to cut jobs in their area. The government has not modelled the loss of spending and has not modelled the loss of tax revenue or the higher welfare bill, with unemployment Newstart benefits having to be paid, that will flow from this bill. The government has ignored the negative impact of its policy on people—on families, individuals and communities. It has failed to model the impact that its plan will have without the income support to vulnerable young people, unemployed for months at a time.

Those on this side of the chamber have referred to the experience of Mr Bill Milby of North Star Cruises. An apology has still not been rendered by the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, or indeed the current Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Wide Bay, who alleged that Mr Milby was not telling the truth, that he was inaccurate in what he had to say when he was told, allegedly—and he was infuriated by this—that he basically had to put off his workers, re-register his ship and engage in the process of Work Choices on water. Mr Milby still awaits that apology, and I hope the government members opposite will give him that apology, because he deserves it, without a shadow of a doubt, based on the evidence that has come out at the Senate inquiry in relation to this legislation.

We recognise what the Abbott-Turnbull Liberal government does not recognise: that a viable shipping industry is vital to our interests. We understand that a home-grown maritime industry is absolutely crucial. We rely on it for 99 per cent of our international trade, which has grown at an annual rate of seven per cent since 2007. It is a shame that those opposite do not recognise that. It is a shame that they do not recognise that what this legislation is all about is an attack on workers' rights and conditions. It is a shame that they do not fess up and tell the truth about the 'deregulatory savings' and the cost and impact this is going to have on Australian families and communities. And it is a shame that those opposite will not actually get up and defend their communities; they will just defend their right-wing, market driven extremist ideologies on industrial relations.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 significantly extends the nonapplication of the Fair Work Act standards to workers on foreign ships working in Australian waters and significantly extends the application of Third World wage levels to the coastal trade, which has quite reasonably led to its being called, by the member for Blair and others, Work Choices on water. Eighty-eight per cent of the claimed deregulatory savings from this bill are from the replacement of Australian wage standards with Third World wage standards. Frankly, and as the member for Blair eloquently pointed out, this is outrageous.

For the past 30 years Australia has been undergoing an experiment. We have not been alone. Quite a few other countries have travelled the same path: free-market liberalism. Its hallmarks have been globalisation, privatisation, the free movement of goods, the free movement of people and deregulation. Its advocates said it would strengthen the Australian economy and make us more resilient to external shocks. But, far from making our economy more diverse and resilient, it has become narrow and vulnerable. We have much higher levels of unemployment than we did 30 years ago. We have much higher levels of youth unemployment, much worse long-term unemployment and serious problems of underemployment, but the people who have dug us into this hole are unrepentant. They want us to keep digging. They talk about the need for economic reform, which is code for more privatisation, more deregulation and even freer movement of goods and people. They talk about leadership, which is code for demanding that politicians do what they want rather than what the voters want. This is a battle which is being fought on many fronts, and this legislation represents just such a front.

Research has indicated that relaxation of shipping regulations would see fewer than 100 seafarers remain in employment out of a current workforce of 1,177. That is according to the Australia Institute. That would be a loss of 93 per cent of the current workforce. This would result in the likely loss of these skills from the country altogether in the longer term. Cruise ship work would go from 40 per cent Australian to 100 per cent foreign, and all movements of iron ore, bauxite, petrol and crude oil between domestic ports would be undertaken by foreign crews. This dire forecast was made as a major Bass Strait freight company, SeaRoad, warned that it would reconsider a $100 million investment in two new cargo vessels if the government pushed ahead with this amendment that would dump rules that force foreign vessels to pay their crew Australian wages while working domestic routes.

The government's official modelling does not take into account the cost of lost Australian jobs, the lost local spending and local tax and higher welfare spending resulting from this package. The Australia Institute's submission to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into the amendment found 'technical shortcomings' with the cost-benefit analysis:

cost-benefit analysis. The submission continues:

The Director of Research at the Australia Institute, Rod Campbell, said:

… the proposed Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is likely to reduce employment for relatively little economic benefit.

He said:

The Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) and Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the Bill largely ignore the challenging economic reality faced by Australian coastal shipping.

Foreign flagged and crewed ships already have considerable access to the Australian coastal shipping market, making Australian coastal shipping possibly the only service sector facing competition that can use foreign labour while actually operating in Australia. By contrast, it is impossible for foreign trucking companies, rail companies or any other service provider to operate in Australia using international labour, paid at international rates. As crewing costs make up between 36 per cent and 42 per cent of ship operating costs, this puts Australian crews at a 15 to 20 per cent disadvantage against international ships in terms of operating costs.

The economic reality of Australia's coastal shipping industry is that it must compete with both heavily subsidised land freight options and international shipping that can use foreign labour while in Australian waters. The free market ideology behind this bill simply ignores that reality. Rod Campbell said:

If an Australian coastal shipping industry is to survive, it needs policy support as is found in many other countries.

The report concluded:

… the proposed Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is likely to reduce employment for relatively little economic benefit. What little benefit that is generated will accrue largely to foreign owned shipping and bulk freight using companies. Rather than increasing access for foreign-crewed ships, coastal shipping would benefit from a policy approach that sought to level the playing field for Australian-crewed ships.

With the size of the domestic shipping fleet declining to just 49, the government wants to drive down the price of freight between Australian ports by opening up the sector to more foreign competition. In the cruise ship sector it has been revealed that senior government officials advised North Star Cruises to lay off its local workers and employ cheaper foreign labour to remain competitive and to take its ship, True North, off the Australian shipping register and re-register under a foreign flag. This is outrageous. Whose side is this government on? Team Australia? I don't think so!

Under the proposed changes, two senior Australian crew members would still be required for a foreign boat to operate in Australia. North Star Cruises has a rotating crew of 40, meaning the overhaul could place the jobs of 38 people in jeopardy. The company representative, Bill Milby, said there were at least another 12 coastal passenger operations in the area that would be negatively affected by the changes.

We already have a situation where temporary licences are dominating the coastal shipping sector. The foreign seafarers who are currently working on the temporary licences do not pay income tax in Australia, nor do they pay income tax in their home countries. This is an element of the unfair operating cost advantages that the foreign flagged, temporary licence ships have over the Australian flagged general licence ships. As the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers says:

If the Australian Parliament cannot legislate to exempt Australian seafarers from income tax, then it should not allow tax exempt foreign seafarers to operate foreign ships in the Australian coastal shipping sector.

The impact of the proposed amendment would be adverse for the few remaining Australian companies engaged in this shipping sector and adverse for the employment opportunities of Australian marine engineer officers, deck officers and other Australian seafarers.

The most significant consequence of this bill is to remove any priority of Australian flagged ship operators over foreign flagged ship operators. Passage of the bill would eliminate the remaining shreds of legislative and regulatory support for the Australian flagged coastal shipping industry. Passage of this bill would mean that Australia would knowingly concede a large degree of sovereign control over vessels which are routinely operating in Australian waters. This is because, in international maritime law, the flag of the ship determines the law applying to the ship.

This is a move that would effectively green-light tax avoidance as the basis for low-cost shipping transport services around the Australian coast. If this parliament were to endorse this current bill, it would be endorsing tax avoidance by foreign ship operators in the name of providing cheaper freight services within Australia. Everyone likes a bargain, but we have been campaigning in international meetings for the reduction and elimination of tax avoidance by corporations. We would have greatly reduced credibility on this issue if we were to open the Australian domestic transport sector to international tax avoiders.

Australia does not allow domestic planes, trains, trucks and buses to be operated on the following terms: overseas vessel registration permitted; foreign personnel as operators working on foreign rates of pay and conditions; no corporate income tax payable in Australia; no personal income tax payable by the crew members; no superannuation payable to these personnel; Australian occupational licensing of these personnel not required; Australian national security checks not required for the personnel; and Australian health and safety laws not applicable. Given that, Australia should not allow ships in the domestic transport sector to operate on these terms either. Australian cargo operators will inevitably switch to the cheaper, tax-free services provided by the flag-of-convenience foreign ship ultimately owned by a company or other entity registered in a tax haven.

Australia is an island nation dependent on shipping for 99 per cent of its trade. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have the fifth-largest shipping task of any nation. Ten percent of the world's trade by weight is carried by ship to or from Australia. Comparable nations all strongly regulate their coastal shipping for national interest reasons—that is, domestic shipping or shipping from one port to another within their borders. This includes the United States, which, via the Jones Act, bans foreign ships and crews from its coastal trade. Canada, Japan and the nations of the European Union do similarly. Australia, in fact, already has a coastal trading policy that allows participation of foreign ships where an Australian ship is not available.

This is a bill which removes revitalising Australian shipping from the objects of Australian coastal shipping. It replaces preference for an Australian flag on ships working the Australian coast with indifference to flagging, with so-called flag-of-convenience ships placed on the same level as those with the Australian flag. When a ship has an Australian flag, it is subject to Australian standards of safety, environmental compliance, taxation and industrial relations both here and on the open sea and it employs Australians. As has been said by others, this bill implements Work Choices on water, with 88 per cent of the government's estimated savings from this bill due to the sacking of Australian workers and their replacement with 90 per cent foreign crew paid Third World wage rates.

Our shipping industry, employing 10,000 Australian workers in direct and indirect roles, is an industry in itself. It deserves a regulatory regime that allows it to operate on a level playing field. That is what happens in every other industry, including in the road, rail and air freight sectors. Labor's position is simple. If you seek to move freight by road in this nation, the truck driver is paid Australian-level wages and operates under Australian workplace health and safety rules. If you seek to move freight by rail, the train driver is paid and required to operate in accordance with Australian law. The situation should be no different on what is referred to as the blue highway. If you work in Australia, you should be paid in accordance with Australian conditions and legal requirements.

The national interest in having an Australian shipping industry is based on three things. Firstly, there is the economic interest. We rely on shipping for 99 per cent of our trade, including an increasing amount of our petroleum supply. We cannot afford interruptions to this trade occasioned by reliance on foreign shipping. We need a maritime sector that calls Australia home. Secondly, there is the environmental interest. Shipping in Australian waters should maintain high environmental standards, especially in heavily used areas like the Great Barrier Reef. Recent incidents such as the Shen Neng, which occurred in 2010 on the Great Barrier Reef, the Pacific Adventurer in 2009 off the Sunshine Coast and the China Steel Developer this year off Mackay underscore the risk to our natural assets. It is highly preferable for local crews with local knowledge of shipping channels and not subject to fatigue or working under poorer work standards to be at the helm of ships working around our coast. Thirdly, there is the security interest. We know that screening of foreign crews is harder than screening of Australian crews. The Office of Transport Security acknowledges this, but a higher risk profile is not factored into the costs of this package. Our Navy benefits from the skills and support provided by the existence of an Australian merchant fleet.

As an island nation, we have a greater interest in a viable local maritime sector than most other nations. The impact of this bill would be adverse for the few remaining Australian companies engaged in the shipping sector. Less frequent reporting requirements would reduce the transparency of the sector and provide parliament with diminished insight into an industry which is generally out of sight and out of mind.

This bill should be rejected and new legislation should be drafted to require all commercial vessels consistently operating in Australian waters to be registered in Australia and to comply with all Australian laws. The fact that this bill deregulates Australian domestic shipping, removing preference for Australian flagged and crewed ships operating around the Australian coast, is regrettable. I believe that it should be amended in the way proposed by the opposition.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wills for his enunciation of the very clear reasons why Labor is opposing the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. As we know, this bill seeks to deregulate the Australian domestic shipping industry. It will remove preference for Australian flagged and crewed shipping operating around the Australian coast.

I will just put this in some context in regard to my own case. The Australian coast is one of the largest coastlines of any nation in the world. In terms of my own electorate, I look after all the coastline in the Northern Territory and a part of the Indian Ocean in terms of Christmas Island and Cocos Island. So I have had a long-term interaction with the shipping industry and the needs of communities around the coast for access to shipping to provide goods and services, as well as for the port of Darwin for imports and exports and, of course, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for basic foodstuffs; their basic supplies coming from the Australian mainland. I have long been a supporter of the Australian shipping industry and the Australian crews who crew those vessels. This bill, however, will remove the preference for Australian flagged and crewed ships operating around the Australian coast. It does this by establishing a single permit system, granting access to ships of any nationality to work in our waters for a 12-month period. That, to me, raises some very serious concerns.

It significantly extends the period of exemption from domestic wages and wage standards for foreign ships. I have had cause to go onto foreign vessels in the past in Darwin just literally as a guest of the Waterside Workers Federation—this was before the MUA. When I went on board this vessel, and I can remember it vividly, it was about occupational health and safety issues and the wages being paid to foreign crews. The vessel that I visited was extraordinary in terms of its lack of health and safety, the oppressive conditions in which the crews worked and the pay which they received, which was far, far less than the standard required by Australian seafarers on Australian crewed vessels. This is what we are talking about here.

We are not just talking about having appropriate international standards; we are talking about foreign vessels doing jobs on Australian routes which should be done by Australian vessels, by Australian crews and under Australian wages and conditions. This is what this is about. And it is about the 10,000 people who work in the Australian shipping industry having the right to retain their jobs in that industry and not be exposed to vessels which will undercut their capacity to get jobs on the vessels on which they currently work because they are foreign flagged, have foreign crews, have foreign environmental standards to meet not Australian standards, and where the occupational health and safety records will, inevitably, be something that we need to examine very carefully and, of course, where wages and conditions will not have the oversight that they currently do with Australian crewed vessels.

The bill also changes arrangements for joining the Australian International Shipping Register by reducing international trading requirements and changing long-held industrial arrangements. These matters should be of concern to all of us. The bill seeks to repeal Labor's 2012 coastal trading laws, which were put in place as part of a broader package of taxation, regulatory and work-skills measures aimed at revitalising the Australian shipping industry. And it extends the non-application of the Fair Work Act standards to workers on foreign ships working in Australian waters.

Why would you do that? What you have in the back of your mind when removing the protections for workers on vessels in Australian ports? What could you possibly have as your motive? You would have thought that the government, working on behalf of the interests of all Australians, would say that it is extremely important that, in the context of these shipping arrangements, we should be looking after and protecting the rights of all workers who are in Australian ports whether or not they are on foreign crewed vessels. And they should be subject to the standards of the Fair Work Act, and appropriately so, and not have those interests and rights diminished by the government, which is moving to remove the application of the Fair Work Act standards on those vessels. Obviously, it extends the application of Third World wage levels to the coastal trade. It has been described by others as just Work Choices on water.

If you actually appreciate the nature of the work which is being done by Australian seafarers out of Australian ports on Australian crewed vessels and understand the importance they have for the local economy and the importance they have in ensuring that we have a high-standard maritime fleet with maritime workers who are properly trained, appropriately supervised and working under conditions which are deemed to be safe and working at wages and salary levels which are appropriate to what they do, to then have a proposal which says, 'We're going to remove all those regulatory requirements about wages and conditions and the owners of the industry will be better off having foreign flagged vessels because that will mean that they will not have to pay Australian wages and conditions,' to me is an indictment on this government.

We all know where we sit in the world, the nature of our economy and the fact that we depend on shipping for 99 per cent of our trade. Why wouldn't we be protecting the interests of Australian seafarers? We have, as has been described by others, the fifth largest shipping task of any nation in the world and 10 per cent of the world's trade by weight is carried by a ship to or from Australia. I think I made the case that it is in Australia's interests, economically, to have a sustainable and viable shipping industry. It is in our national security interests that we have a sustainable and viable shipping industry just as it is in our environmental interests to ensure that we have a safe, sustainable and viable shipping industry. As others have said and the shadow minister has pointed out, that is what Labor's 2012 reforms were all about.

These reforms need time to work and a government that is actually committed to promoting Australia's national interest in shipping. Oddly—and this should be of no surprise to us—this government has ignored the fact that most of Australia's trading partners strongly regulate their own coastal shipping cabotage, for national interest reasons. That should be of no surprise to us. We should understand it. I am sure most of us do but, for some reason or other, the Australian government believes it should apply a different standard, here, from one that our major trading partners apply at home.

The United States has the Jones Act, which bans foreign ships and crews from its coastal trade. Japan, Canada and countries of the European Union do similar things. So if it is okay for our biggest trading partners and advanced western economies to regulate the coastal shipping trade, what is it that is peculiar about Australia that would force us to deregulate our shipping trade? Is it the fact that we have a Liberal government? That is the only thing I can think of. They are ideologically opposed to the idea that we might have a sustainable shipping industry in this country, one which is paying our seafarers fair wages and conditions and ensuring that we have a sustainable and viable coastal shipping industry. I would have thought that is—peculiarly—in our national interests. It appears that this government has decided that is not the case. They are happy to expose our shipping industry and the Australian community to the vagaries and uncertainties of international shipping companies visiting Australia and taking over the work that Australian flagged vessels currently undertake.

Under the proposals before us, ships with so-called flags of convenience are placed on exactly the same level as those that are Australian flagged. All Australian flagged vessels are subject to stringent Australian standards of safety, environmental compliance, taxation and industrial relations, both here and on the open sea. Importantly, these are Australian standards. They are what we expect of Australians who work onshore, but now we are saying we do not expect these same standards to apply to Australians who work on vessels. More importantly, we do not really want Australians working on these vessels; we want foreign crewed vessels, flagged from foreign ports, coming to Australia and taking that work off them.

As the member for Wills pointed out, we do not deregulate the Australian trucking industry and provide the opportunity for trucking companies from overseas to bring whatever vehicle they like onto Australian roads, to not have them registered under Australian conditions, not pay their drivers Australian wages, not have them regulated for the hours they work and all the other occupational health and safety issues that the trucking industry is governed by.

We will not have that happen, but we will allow it to happen in the shipping industry, despite the fact that we think it important we have a shipping industry. In the maritime industry you can do what you like. Take away all regulation. You can use whatever vessel you want from a foreign port and with a foreign flag. And you can bring a crew from wherever you like and pay them whatever you like, under the conditions you can determine that are acceptable to them, provided you are able to employ them, in the first place.

There is no question at all that this is Work Choices on water. As has been mentioned, 88 per cent of the government's estimated savings from the bill comes from the sacking of Australian workers and replacing them with 90 per cent foreign crews paid with third-world wage rates. That is what this bill is about. The government's own modelling makes no account for the cost of lost Australian jobs, lost local spending in local economies, lost local taxation and the inevitable increased welfare spending that will result from this dreadful package.

The government's official modelling assumes that the removal of Australian workplace standards will occasion significant sackings, including in Tasmania and the burgeoning Australian crews sector operating in the north of Australia. I see these vessels in Darwin all the time. What you are effectively saying to them, and we have heard this from an operator on the north-west coast, as it was suggested to this person, 'Get a foreign flagged vessel and bring a foreign crew and you can do what you like.'

That is not acceptable. It would not be acceptable on the Australian mainland, it is not acceptable on the waters of our coast and it will not be acceptable to the Australian community. As we know, around 10,000 Australian workers are in employment as a result of this industry. It is a vital local industry. It is a sustainable local industry. It is a good Australian industry, which needs to be protected—and not thrown to the wolves in the way this government proposes to do.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, essentially, destroys any preference for Australian flagged and Australian staffed boats operating around our own coastline. It establishes a single-permit system, giving access to ships of any nationality to work the Australian coast for a 12-month period and significantly extends the period of exemption for domestic wage standards for foreign ships.

What epitomises the attitude of the administration is the fact that they even went so far as to delete revitalising Australian shipping as an objective of Australian shipping policy. That shows you how determined they are to destroy these jobs and worsen the very poor state of the industry itself.

It is essentially about destroying the 2012 initiatives of the former government. After consultation with a wide variety of reference groups, they came down with a policy to try to save this industry with tax reform, to encourage investment in contemporary and more efficient ships, to increase productivity, including a zero tax rate and seafarer tax exemption, to establish an Australian and international shipping register to augment our international fleet, a streamlined licensing regime to provide clarity and transparency for long-term planning, and to establish clear boundaries around the agreed dimensions of foreign vessels in our coastal trade and the establishment of a maritime workforce development forum.

The previous speaker rhetorically asked, 'Why would they do this?' Quite frankly, I am not surprised they ask this. When we look at the attitudes of people in the Turnbull administration, we find the comment by the trade minister. When he was pressed in regard to saving Australian jobs under the Chinese trade agreement he said, 'It's complicated.' That was his defence for not giving it priority. He is a repeat offender, because on another occasion he said that jobs in Australia was 'a trivial issue'. Sorry, I have misquoted him. He said it was 'just a statistic'. In fact, it was the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development who commented that jobs were a trivial issue. The former Minister for Industry and Science, Mr Macfarlane, who was profoundly thanked by the incoming Prime Minister for making room for some other people in the ministry, spoke of the threatened jobs at BlueScope, the thousands that look like they might go. He reassured us with the very comforting comment that it would not be as bad as the car industry. So we see the attitude of this government.

The Australia Institute has estimated that 93 per cent of these jobs will disappear and that 88 per cent of the financial gains to be made would come from the replacement of Australian workers with overseas workers, often in flag-of-convenience ships, whether they are from Panama, Liberia et cetera. That is of no disquiet to this government. It does not concern them that SeaRoad, a local freight company, would say that it is reconsidering a $100 million investment in purchasing cargo vessels. It would not concern the government, despite the fact that they denied it, that Australian operators in the tourist industry are being told: 'The best way forward for you is to give up. Don't try with Australians. Just replace your staff with overseas workers.'

The context of this, as we heard yesterday in this parliament, is that it is no worry that seven per cent of our workforce are people here on temporary work and student visas. Seven per cent of all Australian jobs are held by them. The fact that, for the foreign million in this country, rates as low as $4 an hour are proffered for jobs is of no concern!

However, they do have some cheerleaders behind them. The IPA are a renowned influence on the government. While Labor is attacked for being xenophobic racist and is said to be going back to the White Australia policy of 1900 because we believe that trade agreements should not be utilised to smash employment conditions in this country or to displace our workers, the IPA—a very close associate of the government in regard to this bill—commented through Mr Chris Berg on 26 May 2015. Do you know what his concern about our shipping industry was? He asked:

Are Chinese registered vessels allowed to ship goods between Brisbane and Sydney? Under highly regulated conditions designed to dissuade them from doing so.

That is the priority of the IPA. They are not concerned with the tax revenue that comes from Australian workers. They are not concerned with the retail money that flows when people are employed in this country. They are more concerned that Chinese vessels are restricted in their ability to move between Brisbane and Sydney.

Chris Berg had another worry—pilotless crews in a coastal environment which is world renowned are finding it difficult to operate under the current conditions. He further bemoaned:

Liberalisation is always accompanied by the bleatings of those whose privileges are being taken away.

Australian jobs are being thrashed, families are losing their breadwinners and shops are not able to rely on those dollars coming through the shopping centre each week. They are 'bleatings' to be ignored!

We have seen the real threat of this on many occasions. We have had the MV Apellis, a Greek owned, Panama registered boat that arrived in WA, wages having been unpaid for eight months, the steward being paid $200 a month, having not enough food to make the trip to Indonesia and food and water being rationed out. We saw the way in which they intended to expand this with the Alexander Spirit. The Australian crew of 36 was thrown out by Caltex and Teekay Shipping. They alleged that they were going international and that is why they had to do it, but the workers—most of them still out of jobs two months later—were to find that that very ship was coming back to these shores.

We can go internationally to see what this government intends for Australian workers. In September of 2009 in Ceuta, the Spanish enclave in Morocco, the Turkish owned Rhoneas in the French river—with a crew of 14, was understocked for the whole trip and had to be detained because their boat needed urgent hull repairs. The workforce, which was there for five months, was 'penniless and forced to rely primarily on the handouts from Ceuta port authority and local charities'. Some $233,000 in wages was held, and three years later it remains unresolved. That is the destiny and the reality that this government wants for the Australian coastal line.

From 2001 to 2010, according to the ILO—that is not the international union movement but the International Labour Organization—1,600 workers were abandoned around the world. It has been estimated in regard to flag-of-convenience vessels that 62 per cent of the workforce labours for over 60 hours a week and 27 per cent labours 12 to 15 hours a day. This is the way in which this government hopes to attract the boats to our shores and decrease the cost of cargo going in and out. This is what they believe is a solution to what they see as too many costs.

Many people have mentioned the Jones Act of the United States, which is designed not only to protect employment but also—from a defence point of view—to ensure that ships are constructed with American content. No more than 25 per cent of the crew are allowed to be foreign. It is all right for John McCain to say that it is antiquated law that has for too long hindered free trade, but unfortunately he does not seem to be making much of an impact around that.

What we are clearly seeing here, on one of the largest coastlines in the world, which carries a significant volume of trade, is a very strong attempt to minimise the working conditions of people in this country. The International Transport Workers' Federation has dealt very strongly with this question of flags of convenience. We see a situation where Panama, Liberia and others basically give these corporations a free hand to undermine people's working conditions around the world. It is interesting to note that six per cent of Liberia's overall income comes from these registrations.

In conclusion, I note that it is highly predictable that the government would do this. They have no concern with 14½ per cent of the population being unemployed or underemployed. The fact is that the government are nowhere near their target of creating one million jobs. Despite the occasional reference to the creation of 325,000 jobs, at the same time, so many jobs have been disappearing. We have a recipe here for low wages, poor onboard conditions, inadequate food, lack of proper rests, evasion of international laws, minimal registration fees, exploitation of the global labour market and minimal taxes.

I do not think anyone would argue that the 2012 reforms have been a significant success story; there has been minimal time for them to operate. The national interest is a very low priority for this government. Employment in this field and the possibility for people's children to go into this field are low priorities for this government. It is all ideologically driven, with elements such as the IPA saying, 'Let it all hang out! It is a dreadful, worrying thing that we haven't got the Chinese along our coastline, being able to travel to all our ports.'

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. In contemplating this legislation, I am drawn to our national anthem and the line, 'our home is girt by sea', reminding us that this great southern land is an island nation. It is a nation that is responsible for 11 per cent of the earth's surface—it is a small nation in terms of population but it is responsible for a large slab of the planet.

Obviously, we have a long seafaring history—perhaps a seafaring history of 100,000 years long—certainly in terms of more recent explorers over the last 300, 400 or 500 years, and a bit further if you include the Macassans coming to the Northern Territory and the northern coast. Prior to Europeans making that long, arduous journey across the seas to reach Australia, there were seafaring Aboriginal people including the Ngaro people in North Queensland. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is home to one of the oldest sites of habitation of this seafaring group. It is estimated to date back 9,000 years. For these Aboriginal people it was essential to navigate the sea for their survival. For the early European seafarers there was no other way to reach Australia or to return to Europe other than across the oceans.

We have always been a seafaring nation by necessity, but those seafaring ways have also honed our skills as competitive sporting sailors as well. Since 1945 Australians have made a sport of negotiating the notoriously treacherous waters of Bass Strait in the annual Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race. We have even been known to win famous yacht races, as we saw with—rest in peace—Alan Bond and that incredible win back in the 1980s. Complementing the outback and those outback stories of Australia like Clancy of the Overflow, The Sundowners and The Man from Snowy River, we have always had that seafaring history. It is a part of what we are as a nation.

Even more importantly, seafaring is crucial to our economy, as we are a trading nation. We are still dependent on shipping for 99 per cent of our trade. That will hopefully change as we provide services via the National Broadband Network. Nevertheless, shipping is a very important Australian industry. It employs 10,000 Australian workers, some of whom I met a few months back. I met with some workers who had been stood down—sacked, effectively—via text message in the middle of the night. I went down to the docks to catch up with some of them and their families. The seafaring industry needs to be fostered and it needs to be looked after.

Labor has always been committed to fostering the Australian shipping industry—an industry that was faltering a little bit under the Howard government. We brought in reforms in 2012 to revitalise the shipping industry. The aim of Labor's reforms was to allow the Australian shipping industry to compete on a level playing field within our borders. It was not about tariffs, but it had a little bit of pragmatism and a little bit of economic nationalism—something that we need to do a bit more regularly when we look at what other nations are doing. The reforms brought in in 2012 included: tax incentives for flagging ships that were Australian and to encourage employment of Australian seafarers; a second register, with tax benefits to ships engaged predominantly in international trade; and a reforms package focusing on maritime skills development. The Abbott-Turnbull government has been on a mission to repeal these important Labor reforms. The Abbott-Turnbull government's undermining of these laws from the time they were implemented has had a deterrent effect on investment in Australian shipping and has sadly seen a continuing decline in the Australian trading fleet.

This bill before the chamber strikes at the heart of these reforms, removing support for the Australian shipping industry and removing the level playing field for Australian flagged ships operating in their own waters. It also erodes protections for workers in the shipping industry. If you work in Australia, whether it be moving freight across the country on land or around the country on water, you should be working under Australian pay and conditions. The bill before the chamber erodes these protections. It is effectively Work Choices on water. Eighty-eight per cent of the savings the government estimates will flow from this bill will be due to Australian workers being replaced by 90 per cent foreign crews which will be working for Third World wage rates, as we have seen too often. Whether it be the Taiwanese fruit pickers that were exploited or the 7-Eleven workers, we see that it is hard to enforce the standards, particularly with respect to the racism of the free market when it comes to foreign workers from poorer countries.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member for Moreton may resume his address at a later hour.