Indeed, it is time for Tasmania to declare its independence and be free from those and other draconic laws - it has only everything to lose from its association with Australia and its government. Being an island, it's more natural for it to be the first for independence, then I hope that the other states will follow.

An independent Tassie Yutushu?
Great idea, let them survive on what GST they can collect internally, rather than remain an economic albatross around the neck of the larger mainland states forever.

That said, I find David's argument both frivolous and vexatious, given bulk freight forwarding remains one of the most lucrative business models on the planet.

What we need is vast modernization, not cheaper labor manning death trap rust buckets!
Think, hugely automated ships need very few crew, maybe just half a dozen.
And their wages could be completely offset by taking a few job chasing fare paying passengers, looking to relocate home, hearth and motor vehicle (in a couple of shipping containers) to other states!
And a fair bet at a price neither road or rail options can't compete with, over the longer hauls!

What we a maritime nation really do need is our own national fleet, which should be nuclear powered; meaning in the foreseeable future as we get deeper and deeper into peak oil, those diesel powered ships (even the most modern ones) will just not be able to compete.
And given defense examples, nuclear powered vessels could deliver freight in half the time, giving them two very sharp edges to compete with!
Time and price!

You've never ever run a transport business have you David?
Rhrosty.

Oh yes please Yuyutsu, that would get rid of half the ratbags in the senate, & a few in the parliament too. It would certainly make Oz more successful, & governable, without our chief money drain.

David this destruction of our coastal shipping trade is nothing new. It is simply another example of union demands, in areas where strikes are most expensive, costing workers the industry jobs they want.

Over 40 years ago, 1972 or 3 I think, a mate reckoned he had it made. A sparky in the coastal shipping trade, he worked 3 months, very well paid then, then went off cruising in his yacht with his wife for his 6 weeks off.

The perfect life he reckoned. Then one day he was very glum. He'd lost his job he said, at least in the long term. The union had won new conditions, 6 months on, 6 months off.

He could see that no company could make shipping pay with such labour costs. He could see no ships being replaced as they retired, & the loss of his job along with the industry. How right he was.

They tried all sorts of tactics, black banning foreign ships that carried Ozzie cargo between local ports, or had foreign crew. Wharfie banns, they tried every thing. Well everything but a fair days work for a fair days pay.

It led to huge fortunes being made in the trucking industry, but it cost Oz & a lot of other people a lot of money, & ultimately my mate his great job.

Continued.

Continued

I don't think it is the average unionist, I don't think they can see what they are doing to harm themselves, just the militant ratbags, & the union bosses.

The union bosses must be able to see the result this action had in the UK, ultimately destroying their industry, & their members jobs, after all, many UK union activists came here to continue their destruction, after the UK jobs collapsed. It was only North Sea oil that saved the UK, as iron ore & coal saved Oz.

I can only assume the bosses don't care, as long as this stupidity gets them re-elected to their cushy jobs, & a step up in the Labor party.

It has cost us coastal shipping, the abattoirs, white goods manufacturing, with the car industry & ship building following quickly now.

It is even in the process of killing our last hope, the mining industry.

Do keep on shouting David, but don't expect to be heard by these dills, with their fingers in their ears.

This surprises me. It seems to be a bad law, so how did it get through the Senate and why wasn't it given much more publicity?

Unless there's a VERY good reason that hasn't been mentioned yet, the act should be repealed. The Rudd government's regulations were sufficient IMO.

Dear Aidan,

<<This surprises me. It seems to be a bad law, so how did it get through the Senate and why wasn't it given much more publicity?>>

Good morning. 99% of the laws are like that - it's the rule, not the exception!

That's why, if Tasmania becomes independent they could repeal so many Australian laws that harass ordinary Australians, thus attracting many Australians to migrate there. Thus Tasmania will prosper and the rest of Australia be impoverished. In turn, Australia (or separate states thereof) will see that good and able people are leaving for Tasmania and will also scramble to repeal laws, thus a healthy competition over individual freedoms will create a better place to live.

I looked at the Coastal Trading Act, which is at...
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00575
...and while it's arguably unnecessarily bureaucratic it doesn't seem to do any of the things that it's being accused of. Although it does give coastal shipping operators the opportunity to object to direct competition from cabotage and negotiate with the foreign ship operators, ultimate control rests with the minister. And if there are only 13 coastal ships left, is it really that much of a problem?

Where is this alleged regulation that requires a vessel to sit in port for a day before it can start loading?

Aidan,

The long and short of it is that any ship transporting goods between two Aus ports has to pay its workers the same as Aus Maritime workers. As MUA workers get paid more than just about anyone else in the world this has nearly doubled the price of shipping freight within Aus ports. This has added huge costs to local manufacturing, and shifted much transport back onto the roads.

Unfortunately for the MUA, the cost of running ships is not just wages, and foreign owned ships are still cheaper, so in spite of the protectionism, the No of Aus owned ships has halved in 6 years.

All in all a terrible law.

Shadow,

That's due to the Rudd government's regulations, which predate the Coastal Trading Act (which was brought in by the Gillard government). That did initially result in fewer ships between Australian ports, but a few years later it was clear it had barely dented the upward trend, at least for the Port of Adelaide, so on what do you base the claim that it shifted much transport back onto the roads? If, despite the apparent lack of evidence, a shift had occurred, I'd expect it to have been onto the railways!

Wage regulation is hardly protectionism (compare it with the USA where they ban cabotage and restrict what vessels can be used). And is there any real evidence that it's nearly doubled the cost of freight between Australian ports?

There's a lot of angst going on this forum, so at the risk of getting blasted myself, let me just say that I hope that all the matters get sorted out. I really don't see why we should be charging other Australian ships or vessels the same as any other's countries' vessels for using our own ports honestly. Whether for storage or for clean up or whatever, we should get a certain discount for using our own native wharves right? I mean that's how we'll maitain our internal competitive advantage. We really shouldn't be fighting about independence and whatever, it's more important to stand united!

Aidan,

I work in a large manufacturing business, and we ship product from Sydney to Perth, Melbourne etc to smaller converting factories. What I do know is that the shipping costs suddenly jumped by 60-70%, and that we changed some shipping to road and rail especially to closer cities, and that the converter in Perth closed down.

Wage increases imposed only on foreign ships is the definition of protectionism as is the banning of cabotage.

Shadow,

When did the shipping costs suddenly jump by 60-70%?

The wage regulation is imposed on all ships between Australian ports, regardless of whether they're domestic or foreign. Therefore it is not protectionism.

Aidan,

The point is that the chinese shipping company that we had a contract for shipping to Asia and to Perth was not paying the same wages, as the cost of living in China is fraction of what it is in Aus.

As the Wage law increased the costs of foreign owned ships only, it is protectionism.

Shadow,

I know what the point you're trying to make is, but just because you're saying it doesn't mean it's true!

Firstly, ITYF it increased the cost of foreign flagged ships rather than foreign owned ships.
Secondly, it did not increase the cost by taxation; it merely ended an exemption they had from existing regulations. Ending exemptions is not protectionism even if those affected are foreign.

And I ask again: when did the shipping costs suddenly jump by 60-70%?