Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond just briefly to the summing up by the minister with regard to the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill, which is supported by both sides of the House and has just passed its second reading with the unanimous support of the House of Representatives. The minister in his summing up referred to the legislation that is currently before the Senate that would decimate the Australian shipping industry and suggested that it was the case that Labor did not support any changes. The minister knows that I have said to him in private what I now say to him again in public, in his presence, which is that Labor stands willing to participate with industry, with the unions and with the sector on any practical measures that could be made to improve productivity. What we do not stand in support of is legislation that itself says in the explanatory memorandum will lead to the reflagging of Australian vessels and the replacing of Australian seafarers with foreign seafarers on foreign wage rates. That is why the legislation is not the subject of amendments by Labor; it is fundamentally flawed.

The legislation seeks to replace the legislation that was carried by the previous government in 2012. That legislation amended the Navigation Act 1912—that is, it replaced legislation that was literally one century old. It was the most significant and transformative legislation with regard to the maritime sector in the history of this parliament. What we do know is that when you have such a significant legislative change, amending more than one hundred years of practice then inevitably, as is occurring with this very legislation that is the subject of the third reading at the moment, you come in and you move amendments to the existing legislation. The legislation before the parliament amends four separate bills. It makes changes which are minor but which are important, which is why the opposition, Labor, is supporting these changes.

We would have the same approach towards a practical and genuinely consultative approach to the reform of shipping if there were some changes to the way that permits are granted or other changes were to be made. I again reiterate to the Deputy Prime Minister that I do not believe that you should have a circumstance whereby the government wants to see the Australian flag disappear from around our coast, but that is precisely what the legislation says, that is precisely what departmental officials have told Australian businesses, including Mr Bill Milby of North Star Cruises, and that is the consequence of the legislation that is currently before the Senate. So, I again take the opportunity to reiterate that the minister is not right when he suggests that Labor is not willing to consider changes; we are. What we are not prepared to do is not so much throw the baby out with the bathwater but throw the Australian flag under water, which is what would occur with the legislation that is before the Senate. I support this proposed legislation, the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015, that is before the House. This legislation, which is about to receive unanimous support for the third reading, is the sort of legislation that should come before this House with regard to the maritime sector.

I will conclude with this: if the minister's legislation were to get through the Senate, it would be the subject of massive changes, should Labor be elected to government. Governments come and go in this place. What the maritime sector needs is some long-term investment certainty, which is why I offer again to try to work through a position which can provide that investment certainty. That is what the sector requires. The minister knows full well that, from the time the legislation was carried in mid-2012—and most of it only came into practice therefore in 2013, just shortly before the federal election, with a then coalition that was likely to be elected to government—of course, it impacted on investment decisions. Still, we saw companies like SeaRoad invest in two new vessels. There were companies like Wellard in WA, and others, who indicated that they wanted to reflag their ships—not from the Australian flag to the flag of Panama or Liberia, but to reflag their ships from countries like Singapore—to put the Australian flag on the back of those vessels and, indeed, to have specific, purpose-built vessels made in Australia, therefore benefiting the manufacturing sector with regard to the maritime industry as well.

I commend the existing bill to the House. I suggest to the minister and to the government that they actually get serious about supporting the maritime sector, because it is so important for us as an island continent. It is in our economic, national security and environmental interests that we have an Australian presence around our coast and a strong maritime sector.

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

Deputy Speaker, if I may—

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the third reading.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.