Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Kim Carr. I refer the minister to the report released today on the economic impacts of the proposed shipping reform package, prepared by Deloitte Access Economics, which indicates an increase of up to 16 per cent in coastal shipping rates at a cost of $466 million over the next decade. Given the cost impact the government is imposing with the carbon tax and the already parlous state of the manufacturing sector in this country, how can the government justify adding yet another cost to the industry? Has the government estimated how many Tasmanian jobs will be lost and, if so, how many?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government makes no apology whatsoever for asserting that Australian seafarers working on vessels in Australian waters should have the benefit of Australian workplace relations laws and should have a fair safety net for their employment conditions. This position stands in very sharp contrast to that of those opposite who, when they were in government, took the view that foreign ships should be excluded from the protections of Australian law. The position that the opposition took was that Australian working people should not be able to rely upon the protection of Australian law when working on ships off the Australian coast. This allowed foreign seafarers working in Australian waters to be paid significantly less than Australian workers performing work on the same routes.

Clearly, this position is intolerable. This is the equivalent of allowing foreign workers to come to Australia on section 457 visas but not requiring them to be paid the same minimum entitlements as Australian workers. As well as being unfair, it is a disincentive to employ Australians. At a time when we understand the importance of providing real economic opportunities for Australian workers, you would have thought the Liberal Party would have woken up to itself by now. The Australian government's shipping reforms do not close our coast to foreign ships but do encourage people to be treated fairly and properly under Australian law, and the government makes no apology whatsoever.

With regard to the proposition that this is an attempt to undermine Australian shipping, we are opening up opportunities for Australian shipping and Australian shipping companies.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that fuel companies have warned that this measure creates uncertain­ties and irregularities in fuel supplies and leaves my home state of Tasmania 'extraordinarily exposed' in relation to both supply and price, what action will the government take to ensure that Tasmania is not disadvantaged by these new laws?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to shipping reform, the Australian government takes the view that we are opening up opportunities, not restricting them. We are ensuring that there will be more ships plying Australian waters. We are able to ensure that costs can be contained in a proper manner which provides proper job security for Australian workers and for them to be employed under decent conditions. In fact, as far as Tasmanians are concerned—

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order on relevance: my question specifi­cally related to what action the government would take to ensure that Tasmania was not disadvantaged in relation to the supply and price of fuel. It had nothing to do with what the minister has been rambling on about.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: the minister is addressing the principal question that was raised by Senator Colbeck, which was on shipping reform. The minister's reference to that has been directly relevant and, in dealing with the supplementary, he is able to draw on the primary question.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: when you rule could you indicate for the benefit of the Manager of Government Business that, under sessional orders, when you have a supplementary question your answer has to be directly relevant to that supplementary question and that you cannot go back to the initial question and try to keep answering that because you want to avoid the specific supplementary question.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is required to address the question that has been asked by Senator Colbeck. I draw your attention to the question. The minister has 33 seconds remaining to answer the question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would appear that Senator Colbeck is basing his assertions on the modelling that was undertaken by Deloitte Access Economics. The report is based on a whole lot of false assumptions. It assumes, for instance, that people should be able to operate in breach of the law. That is not the basis on which to run a modern economy. It is not the basis on which to ensure that we get a fair go for Australian workers. Senator Colbeck, if you assume that Tasmania is going to be protected on the basis of breaking the law, you are wrong. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. Given that Tasmanian businesses such as Nyrstar and Cement Australia particularly rely on this form of shipping, that Rio Tinto and BHP TEMCO are both under review, that our farming sector is already being hit as a result of the anticipated carbon tax, that Tasmania is on the verge of recession under the yoke of the local Labor-Greens government and that the majority of Tasmanian industry is dependent on coastal shipping, why is the federal government intent on putting Tasmanian businesses under even more pressure?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The essential assumption that Senator Colbeck is putting to this chamber is that industries in Tasmania should be able to rely upon vessels crewed by foreign crews and they should be able to provide a competitive alternative to Australian flagged ships or Australian crewed vessels on the basis that they operate at lower rates of pay—that they should operate on lower conditions for Australian workers. That is the basis for your claim for a reduction of the rates. What you are doing is actually supporting people breaking the law to do such a thing.

The assumptions that you are making are ones that we do not accept. It is not appropriate in the modern age to rely on that form of unfair competition to sustain lower rates in terms of freight—when you are paying less wages for what should be the same work.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.