Mr HOLLIS(11.39 a.m.) —One of the speakers from the government asked: why are there so many opposition members speaking on this legislation? I will answer that question: it is because we believe passionately in this country and we believe passionately in the future of the maritime industry of this country.

I did take exception when the member for Page (Mr Causley) said that we in the Labor Party were not interested in the future of Australia. Let me tell him that I have been on the transport committee of this House now for eight or 10 years. I have spent endless hours working, bringing down unanimous reports from all sides—even from committees with some National Party members on them. I mention just a few: Ships of shame, the sequel to Ships of shame, reports on railways, and also Warehouse to wharf.

From listening to the honourable member for Page, it appears that he is in a time warp. He seems to think that, if you take all the waterside workers in Australia, line them up against the wall and shoot them, all our problems will be solved. If he knew absolute ly anything about the waterside, he would know that the waterside workers are only one link in a whole chain. Other links in that chain are some of his mates, the forwarding agents and people responsible for the receiving of goods, and so on, whose delays put additional costs on Australian shipping.

As I have said, the honourable member for Page appears to be in a time warp—and time warp is right. He relied on the reading of a letter in which someone told him that in 1945 the Maritime Union held up the loading of a ship and did not help in Australia's war effort.

Let me tell the honourable member for Page something about the waterside workers of Australia: at about that time—in fact, a few years earlier—at a place called Port Kembla, when the then conservative government under one Bob Menzies was shipping out pig-iron to the Japanese to be fired back at our troops, it was the waterside workers at Port Kembla who saved hundreds of Australian lives by stopping that pig-iron from being shipped out. Incidentally, that was where old Bob Menzies got the name Pig Iron Bob—and a well-deserved name it was too.

The member for Page also talked about the Maritime Union at the time of the war not being interested in the future of Australia. Off his electorate and other electorates along the east and west coasts of Australia, but in particular along the east coast, there lie over 140 merchant ships at the bottom of the sea and the seafarers which went with them. The honourable member for Page was saying that the seafarers were unpatriotic. They were patriotic enough to give their lives for this country, and today they lie in their watery graves to prove it. If the honourable member is locked in a time warp, let us bring him a little up to date.

The legislation we are debating today is likely to be the most ideologically driven that the government will introduce during its terms of office as it gives expression to its hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia. It is legislation based on prejudice, ignorance and hatred. This hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia will greatly damage the Australian shipping industry.

It is not only the maritime unions and the people in the Labor Party who are opposed to this legislation. As other members have said, BHP, the big Australian, among others in the shipping industry, is bucking at the repeal by this bill of the Ships (Capital Grants) Act and the International Shipping (Australia-resident Seafarers) Grants Act. An article in the Australian Financial Review states:

BHP and other major shipping operators have warned the Government that the abolition of these measures will leave the industry in limbo and place Australia at a severe disadvantage in the international community.

I thought, really, that this was a government that had a good relationship with the business community. The International Shipping (Australia-resident Seafarers) Act provides a taxable grant to the ship operator—and I repeat: to the ship operator. Haven't you people read the legislation? You come in here and talk about a grant to the Maritime Union. It has nothing to do with the Maritime Union; it is a grant to the ship operator.

We know that you opposed the legislation last year when it was introduced. Now the minister, in a fit of ignorance, describes it simply as yet another rort for the Maritime Union for Australia. That ignorance is paraded time and time again every time someone from the government side gets up to speak. If this is the case, why is it that the shipping industry is so up in arms? Why are shipping operators saying to the government in meetings at the highest level not to repeal this legislation because it will leave Australian industry in limbo and place us at a severe disadvantage internationally?

Look, stop this nonsense about it coming from the Maritime Union. The idea came from the shipping industry itself. It is the same as applies in many other parts of the world. You would think that Australia was the only place that had this. It applies in many other parts of the world. You know and the fact is that, if the minister and the government put aside their ideologically driven bent for just a moment, these measures address aspects of the non-level playing field against Australian shipowners whose cost structures include the adoption and application of important international maritime conventions concerning safety and ship standards. Compare this to our international competitors who have access to flags of convenience ships and second register crews.

Unlike Australian shipowners, such international competitors have access to fiscal advantages provided through direct assistance by their own governments—flags of convenience registration in countries with little or no taxation or ship safety requirements applying, access to cheap and untrained labour, a failure to adopt international shipping conventions on safety and environmental responsibility, and all of the associated costs involved.

The repeal of the measures in these acts seriously and unnecessarily undermines a viable and critical Australian industry. The immediate effect of the repeal of these acts will be an increase in cost to the Australian international shipping industry. In 1996-97 these increases in costs are expected to be about $27 million. To revoke the accelerated depreciation and the Ships (Capital Grants) Act would equate to a 23 per cent increase in capital costs or 15 per cent in the total cost per ship.

Since 1989 over $2 billion has been committed to investment in ships, with the result that the Australian fleet is half the age of the world fleet. This investment, by the admission of the Chief Executive of the Australian Shipowners Association, Lachlan Payne, is now under threat. In the Daily Commercial News of 2 May, Mr Payne stated:

Projects will be stalled, or shelved because of uncertainty. The international shipping market characterised by fleets subject to government measures of one kind or another . . . and there are a wide variety of these measures.

He goes on to state:

It is fallacious to believe Australian shipping can compete internationally without some government measures, which are applied by other countries as a matter of choice . . . to compete Australian shipping needs measures such as those the Government is now repealing.

These are very damming words for the minister. This is not, by the admission of the government's own supporters in the business community, a rort for the MUA: it is critical to the wellbeing of the Australian shipping industry. They are pleading with you to leave these measures alone.

It is not fashionable these days, especially when trying to justify an impending attack on the MUA, as the government is at the moment, to remind the House that over the last decade due to reforms implemented by the previous government shipowners and workers have made significant gains in productivity and competitiveness. Average ship crew sizes dropped from 33 in 1983 to 18 in 1986. This represents a reduction in crew sizes of 45 per cent without one day's delay due to industrial disputes. Further, the minister in his second reading speech conceded that these manning levels are consistent with international standards. No matter what the minister says on Lateline, Business Sunday or in question time, he has put the facts in black and white on page 182 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 1 May 1996.

Industrial disputes hit their lowest level in 10 years in 1992-93 when only 23 ship days were lost due to crew disputes. No-one would deny that dealing with the shipping industry and the waterfront are easy questions, but nor does all wisdom lie on one side. What I and the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) find disappointing from those opposite, not only in this debate but over many years, is that they have given no credit to the significant reforms made to Australian shipping regarding levels of crewing and multiskilling, and indeed on the waterfront itself.

Mr Martin —And particularly at Port Kembla.

Mr HOLLIS —I am coming to that. Australia, as an island continent, is more dependent on shipping than most. There are defence implications and security implications, so why should we put all our imports at the mercy of the foreign masters?

There is also an amount of ignorance on all sides regarding the waterfront and shipping. I wonder how many members on the other side have actually talked to someone from the Maritime Union or visited the waterfront. I know that on many occasions I have extended to the minister an invitation to come to Port Kembla. Some years ago the Port Kembla harbour task force worked out a scheme whereby people involved in the waterfront could visit farmers in the central west of New South Wales, stay in their homes and see first-hand some of the problems they are facing. We all admit that people on the land have problems. The reverse was that the farmers could come and stay with people involved in the Maritime Union at Port Kembla and see first-hand some of their problems. This led to considerable understanding between the two groups, because they both understood that one side was not totally right and that all wisdom did not lie on one side. So they realised that both sides had difficulties. It is a pity that does not happen more often.

Now is not the time—if ever there is a time—to attack the shipping industry that has made so much progress in restructuring simply to satisfy this government's manic hatred of the Maritime Union and its membership. The port of Kembla is in the centre of my electorate and, as reported in the Daily Commercial News of 2 May, has had its best month's trading, with imports and exports reaching almost three million tonnes. The reasons for this impressive record are the improvements in BHP tonnage, the best month for the Port Kembla coal loader in three years and good grain exports through the Port Kembla grain terminal.

This strong performance reflects Port Kembla's capacity to handle cargo in excess of 30 million tonnes per year. I am proud of the fact that in my electorate Port Kembla harbour is set to become one of the most dynamic, efficient and best performing ports on the east coast of Australia. But this government wants to put all this progress at risk, so unnecessarily. The repeal of these acts will have a negative effect on the current account deficit; marine insurance; towage and pilotage; the development and supply of shipping technology; ship management and repairs. There are three vessels under construction at the moment, and they were to be delivered this fiscal year. The unnecessary repeal of these acts will see direct and unplanned increases in the cost of construction. BHP Transport, Shell Australia, and Mackay Refined Sugars will be retrospectively penalised as a result. And I thought you were the people who hated retrospectivity!

The current measures have the support of BHP, the Australian Shipowners Association and other operators in the industry. These organisations have told the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) that these measures are necessary for the viability of the industry. They have warned the government that the industry will be placed in limbo. Investment planning will dry up, and the international community will avoid Australia again.

Last Friday the Australian Financial Review reported that shipowners have suspended some $250 million in planned investment in new tonnage. I am particularly concerned that the government is floating the idea of a second shipping register. Despite how the government might dress this up, a second register is nothing more than a convenient way for shipowners to not meet their legal requirements of shipping. The legal requirements in respect of crew levels, crew competence and safety measures will be able to be ignored.

Those of us who worked on the Ships of shame report know how one must be ever vigilant to foreign shipping coming into Australia. This move will open the Australian coastline to rust buckets of the world. The difficulty is that many of them, under the government's proposal, will now be registered in Australia. What we will see is ships on the Australian run with perhaps Australian officers, but a crew from Third World nations, paid Third World wages and working under Third World conditions. Make no mistake, the result of the second register in Australia will be poorly trained crews, the loss of safety conditions and the real possibility of disastrous maritime accidents with a pollution bill running into millions of dollars which taxpayers will be required to pick up.

Avid readers of the Daily Commercial News will be aware of the regular reports which that paper carries of the trials and tribulations experienced by foreign crews aboard flags of convenience ships. It details how they are not paid and gives descriptions of their working conditions, abuses, malnutrition, health problems, injuries and deaths. On 9 May the paper reported that 11 Chinese sailors had fled a Taiwanese fishing trawler anchored in Wellington saying that they were beaten and whipped for more than five months at sea. These Chinese allege that they were beaten with sticks and whips embedded with fish hooks. Most had injuries and a number were treated at Wellington Hospital. The sailors were promised pay of $164 a month, but they only received $120.

Is this what the crowd opposite want? This is what we are going to get on the Australian coastline. The honourable member for Page asked me how many of these ships there are. He should read the Daily Commercial News. Between 18 and 25 ships are detained a month. I have an arrangement to go down and look at every ship that is detained in Port Kembla. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) comes with me. We look at those ships and try to board them. Usually we are not allowed to go aboard them. We have seen those ships. We have spoken to the seafarers not only at Port Kembla but also in other areas.

Do not come into this chamber and say that this happens only occasionally. It is happening every day on the Australian coastline. This is what those opposite want as the norm for Australia. Australian seafarers are the best trained in the world. It always amazes me that some shipowners or cargo owners want to put their cargo in the hands of untrained, inexperienced crews. There are many reasons why we should proudly keep an Australian owned and operated as well as Australian crewed shipping industry.

Those calling for the introduction of foreign flag ships in Australia, disguise it how they may, are advocating tax avoidance. The huge advantage that these owners have over Australian shipowners is that they pay little or no tax. They are not smarter or better; they just do not have the tax burdens.

Foreign flags are cheaper because they do not pay tax, but that is no reason to import them into our domestic economy. The argument that this would lead to a competitive balance between Australian flagships and foreign flags is nonsense. The Australian ships would flag out immediately in order to gain the tax advantages of their competitors and we would finish up with no Australian fleet at all. Is this what the government is proposing? It is proposing that we in Australia exchange safe, well maintained, well crewed ships for the foreign ships. Additionally, it would put several thousand seafarers onto the dole and significantly increase our balance of payments problem through the profits and wages repatriated out of Australia.

Lest I be accused of racism by some, let me make it clear that I am not opposed to foreign crews per se. I am opposed, however, to the use of foreign crews to circumvent the proper pay and working conditions enjoyed by Australian seafarers. If foreign crews are to be used, we must ensure that they are paid according to established Australian standards.

I have been very concerned about the increase in the issue of single voyage permits. I am opposed to the issue of these permits because it is a way to weaken cabotage in this country. In most of the world cabotage is closely protected, but the issue of single voyage permits is a way around this. The use of single voyage permits as a means to carry freight around the nation is gaining momentum, increasing the use of foreign flag vessels as a transport option for Australian business. This increased use will also have an effect on rail operators endeavouring to maintain a competitive edge.

Single voyage permits are supposed to be issued when there is no Australian ship able to do the work. It is in this case that a permit may be issued. Before the Department of Transport and Regional Development issues the permit it is supposed to contact the unions and satisfy itself that these ships meet all Australians standards. The issue of these permits, in their ever-increasing numbers, is nothing short of a farce.

There is no doubt that these ships in the main do not comply with Australian standards. Too many of these ships are not being inspected and too many are not meeting Australian standards. The dramatic increase in the number of single voyage permits being issued over the last few years is not a matter for celebration. The rules in existence should be enforced according to this legislation.

Many of us who take an interest in shipping could give many examples of the condition of ships issued with single voyage permits. I have seen many of these ships but the one that is indelibly etched on my mind is the A.P.J. Anano, which was issued a single voyage permit from Albany in Western Australia to Gladstone in Queensland. It was then going to go on to Mackay to pick up sugar.

This ship, which was supposed to meet all of the requirements, had some 140 defects. The two mates on the ship were only cadets and did not have proper certificates. I know this because, at the invitation of the union, I inspected this detained ship. This is the sort of rust bucket that those opposite will put on the Australian coastline with all its tragic threats to our environment.

Many of the new members in their first speeches made mention of the sell-off of Australian assets overseas. If they are so concerned, why are they supporting this legislation? Do they want to be selective about what should be sold? I remember the debate last year on the sale of Dreamworld. While I accept that Speedo, Arnotts biscuits and Vegemite fit the category of Australian icons, I find it difficult to accept that an American-style theme park can quickly obtain Australian icon status. (Time expired)