Mr SAWFORD(12.49 p.m.) —The Shipping Grants Legislation Bill 1996, which is before this House, is, I believe, simply a process to satisfy the government's black-hearted hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia. During the election campaign the coalition's slogan was, I believe, `for all of us'—for all Australians. But not if you are a public servant, not if you are an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, not if you are an immigrant from a non-English speaking background, not if you want a telephone in the future in regional Australia, and especially not if you happen to be a member of the Maritime Union of Australia.

This is not legislation to unify Australia. This is not legislation of composition, of joining together, of union, of blending of amalgam of the best or of any harmony whatsoever. This is not legislation of partnership in league with a crucial Australian industry. This is legislation of bloody-minded malevolence, cussedness and bad intent. Put that together with the betrayal of the cloven hoof, spite, malice, acrimony, truculence, churlishness and maliciousness and you have the classic recipe for disorder, confrontation and disharmony which this government seems to be intent upon.

You would think that a new government would at least want to acknowledge the warm and cuddly rhetoric it espoused during the election campaign. But no; it is simply driven by an ideological frenzy to destroy a crucial Australian industry which cannot be argued is in the national interest.

The legislation brings forward the expiry date, from 30 June 1997 to 30 June 1996, of grants provided under the Ships (Capital Grants) Act 1987. This is, of course, an act which was not opposed by the coalition in 1987 and in fact was the culmination of a process initiated by a coalition transport minister, Ralph Hunt, through the Crawford report.

This ships act 1987 provides a taxable grant of seven per cent of the capital value of new or used ships registered in Australia that are owned by Australian taxpayers and subject to certain crewing requirements. The termination is expected to secure some $12 million in 1996-97. In other words, it is pretty clearly anti-Australian ownership and it is very clearly anti-Australian investment in a crucial industry in which any trading nation must take a long-term view.

The other content of the bill repeals the International Shipping (Australian-resident Seafarers) Grants Act 1995 which provided a taxable grant to the ship operator—not the Maritime Union of Australia—equal to PAYE tax payments at award rates for vessels which undertake more than 50 per cent of their voyage time on overseas routes. Repealing this grant is expected to save $40 million over the four years to 30 June 2000. As with the former act, it is not clear if this includes any company tax which would have been paid on the grant.

These measures put forward by the government will seriously undermine the viability of the Australian shipping industry. As I will quite clearly point out, they are certainly not in Australia's national interest or in the interest of Australians. We on this side of the House, of course, remember coalition governments of the past: that they would embark on the lower side of national interest comes as no surprise to us. Why would a government decimate the national merchant fleet in the national interest?

Does anyone on that side of the House understand that the defence capability of our nation will be severely compromised by the vengeance driven legislation of the government? Does anyone on that side of the House understand the memorandum of understanding that shipowners have with the navy to provide assistance in the case of a national emergency? Does anyone on the government side understand that some of our merchant fleet ships have facilities to specifically assist the navy? Does anyone on the government side understand that a lack of trained seafarers in Australia will also make emergency crewing of the navy difficult?

Have members of the government forgotten that, in this country's defence, an integral part of the infrastructure would be the merchant navy? Have members of the government suffered a delusion of grandeur because they now occupy the treasury bench and, in that heady atmosphere, have simply forgotten the lessons of their parents in war? This government has been entrusted with awesome responsibilities, and one of these responsibilities ought to be the national merchant fleet.

The government has been lauding its Telstra environmental package on one hand and creating the potential for environmental disaster on the other. Does anyone on that side of the House understand that sea transport is environmentally more desirable than other forms of transport? In terms of energy consumption, bulk shipping uses only 0.2 megajoules per tonne per kilometre as compared with double the amount for rail, which uses 0.4, and seven times the amount for articulated vehicles, which use 1.4. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, bulk sea transport generates the lowest carbon dioxide per tonne per kilometre. This is what the coalition means by sustainable environmental development. The minister does nothing. It is an interesting definition from the coalition.

There are many new members on the government side. I suspect at least a third of them are in for very short-lived political careers. I suggest that the few who have further aspirations speak up about the importance of a national merchant fleet for this country.

Do they realise that Australian shipowners and workers have made significant gains in productivity and competitiveness in the last decade? I suspect not. Do they realise that waterfront reform since 1989 has resulted in stevedoring employee numbers being cut by 57 per cent; productivity at container terminals being doubled; annual savings of over $300 million being achieved from the reduced work force; the number of unions being reduced; the introduction of a new multiskilled classification which has eliminated demarcation; and grain and coal handling achieving world best standards? I suspect not.

Do they realise that, since 1990 and 1991, coal loaded through the port of Newcastle—one of the biggest coal loading operations in the world—increased by more than 30 per cent, representing an extra 11 million tonnes of coal? I suspect not. Do they realise that, between 1989 and 1995, the average loading time for grain ships decreased from 5.6 days to 1.4 days? I suspect not. Do they realise that, since 1989, over $2 billion has been committed to the investment of ships in Australia? What happens to BHP? What happens to the Mackay cooperative? What happens to the other investors? Not interested!

Do they realise that the Australian fleet is half the age of the world fleet? Obviously not. Do those on the government side realise that manning levels in Australian international ships have fallen from an average of 31.6 in 1986 to 18.4 in 1995? Obviously not. At least in his second reading speech the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Sharp) conceded that these Australian manning levels are now consistent with international standards. Is he the only one? Is that the only thing he will acknowledge?

Does anyone on the government side appreciate that industrial disputes in this industry hit their lowest levels in a decade in 1992-93 when only 23 ship days were lost due to crew disputes? Obviously not. Is it right, is it proper, is it responsible or, indeed, is it prudent to attack an industry that has made such progress halfway through a restructuring process merely to satisfy the government's black-hearted hatred and its ideological frenzy to destroy the Maritime Union of Australia?

I have not heard anyone on the government side acknowledge that the decimation of shipping will have a negative effect on the net service component of the current account. For example, if there had been no merchant fleet from 1986 to 1987, the current account deficit would have increased by $440 million. That is about 14 per cent of the services deficit and about four per cent of the current account deficit. Pretty strange strategy, I would have thought, on the current account deficit.

The Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles), who is at the table, should understand that knowledge is the lowest intellectual skill, but it is the one on which the coalition falters and fails, especially when it comes to Australian shipping. There is not much point in having higher intellectual skills, is there? Do not have anything like analysis or synthesis or insight or prediction or comprehension. Do not have any of those higher skills, just stick to the low level of knowledge. On this issue the coalition fails miserably.

Does anyone on that side of the House appreciate that Australian crews on Australian ships are some of the most highly trained in the world? Is there any appreciation over there that the use of poorer quality crew exploited from Third World countries and the use of older, less well-maintained vessels—which have the habit of having accidents and regularly going to the bottom of the sea—will significantly increase insurance costs paid by the users? I guess not—not important. Is there any appreciation that Australian vessels undertake longer voyages than the average, often in very severe conditions? I guess not.

Is there any appreciation of the potential risk to our environment and the greater likelihood of environmental damage from shipping disasters on our shores? I guess not. These disasters could affect the fish nurseries, the Great Barrier Reef and ecotourism—the list goes on and on. What has the government actually considered in this legislation, other than its hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia?

There is considerable damage to this nation implicit in this legislation. What about marine insurance? No answer. What about the provision of stores to ships? No answer. What about towage? No answer. What about pilotage? No answer. What about the development and supply of shipping technology? No answer. What about repairs and maintenance? No answer. What about jobs and investment in those areas? What about the cities and the people who live there? What about the future of this nation? Is the coalition going to make the export of jobs and investment a growth industry under its stewardship and have it follow the proposed Telstra debacle?

When the reality eventually dawns on the Australian electorate—and make no mistake it will, although it will take some time—they will react accordingly. I made a prediction back in 1990 that this government would eventually get onto the treasury bench and that it would be there for one term. You will not see the year 2000. You do not deserve it and you have started to get yourself back over here where we are.

This coalition will very quickly—and much quicker than you think—take its rightful place on the opposition benches, and it will do it much more quickly than some of those commentators up there think. Let us face it, port and other maritime regulatory authorities will have a greatly reduced pool of skilled labour to draw on. Not only may this affect the provision of harbourmasters and ship control officers but also safety, investigation and emergency personnel.

No-one ought to be surprised that most countries, be they in the OECD or otherwise, provide fiscal assistance to their national fleets. They use their brains, they use their nous. They do this for the reasons I have outlined. It is sensible, it is responsible and it is prudent for any nation to secure its merchant fleet. Why not Australia, shadow minister, why not Australia?

Why is it that this country under the leadership of the coalition—I am trying to promote you—can ignore what no other responsible country would do? What do these responsible countries do? These countries provide depreciation allowances. These countries provide concessional tax rates. These countries provide concessional loans and they provide subsidies. They know through their own bitter experience that you do not under any circumstances decimate your merchant fleet, and those who ignore history do so at their peril.

Abolishing the assistance as proposed by this legislation will not create a competitive level playing field for Australian shipping in the international market but what it will do is place the Australian shipping industry in a great big black hole. This early withdrawal of the capital grant will have a number of specific effects on the Australian shipping industry.

What incentives will there be for shipowners to invest in new ships and technology? We have one company in my electorate of Port Adelaide, South Australian Ships, building fast, aluminium, catamaran ferries. Is there any appreciation on the government's side that unless we invest in new shipping technology and jump ahead of the pack the Australian fleet will age and that this will have the guaranteed result of increasing costs which ultimately will be passed on to consumers?

What did you say before the election to these people who were investing in ships? Did you say anything about all of this? Did you tell them in your negotiations? No. Even when they were asked over there in the other place they had no indication whatsoever that this was going to occur.

If the costs of new vessels increase, as they surely will, then further increases in capital productivity and hence manning levels simply cannot occur. There are at least three vessels, as has been pointed out, currently under construction that were to be delivered in the 1996-97 financial year. This will see a direct, unplanned increase in the cost of these vessels which cost tens of millions of dollars to build over the space of a number of years. This is in direct contradiction to the minister's comments in his second reading speech about the need to provide transitional arrangements for the withdrawal of the accelerated appreciation allowance.

Repealing the grant paid to international trading vessels will have some unintentional consequences. Australian vessels will switch their operations from international to coastal services, and this will increase the cost of international trade relative to coastal trade. Australian shipowners will therefore be placed at a competitive disadvantage in relation to ships registered in other countries where there are generous tax concessions and ships registered in tax havens.

Legislation—or anything else—that is based on ideological frenzy, hatred, vengeance, black-heartedness, scapegoating or whatever, is folly of the penultimate kind. This legislation ought to be vigorously opposed by anyone in this House who has Australia's long-term national interests at heart. If it is not, then, after the Telstra debacle, this shipping legislation folly, the proposed public sector slashing and the expected cuts in health, education and welfare, the government will add coffin nail after coffin nail to its electoral fortune. Many on the other side will watch their political careers go quickly into disappearance mode.

The government will not get away for much longer with the slippery rhetoric of justifying its actions by blaming the former government when the truth is that this government simply put itself into a corner by irresponsible election promises. Make no mistake, the truth will prevail. The truth always prevails. Unfortunately, it takes far too long at times, but it is inevitable. It is as certain as night follows day. If members of this House are concerned with this nation's long-term national interest, they will have the courage and the integrity to vigorously oppose this foolhardy legislation.

I conclude by mentioning part of a pamphlet prepared by the Maritime Union of Australia. It sums up how this nation ought to feel about a very crucial industry. It says that Australia has been a seafaring nation for over 200 years and that Australians are pretty proud of our maritime industry, which has a long history, a long tradition, and a lot of culture, and which has brought economic independence with it.

The plea from the Maritime Union is not to let a political agenda of hatred ruin a viable Australian industry. This House ought to support its shipping industry. It ought to support its country. It ought to have a long-term view of Australia as a trading nation. This bill will bring disharmony, confrontation and a deal of angst that this coalition government will not have the ability to deal with. Mark my words, you are setting yourself down a path from which you will find it very difficult to return, and it will be to your great cost and to this nation's great cost.