Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, which amends four acts. It amends the Lighthouses Act 1911, the Navigation Act 1912, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Shipping Registration Act 1981. The government has an ongoing and very vital role in the administration of our marine environment, whether it be simply the safe passage of ships or something else. In a variety of ways we seek to preserve and conserve our marine environment; we seek to preserve and conserve our marine species; and we seek to regulate the pollution of the sea, not only by ships but also by man, by land based industries. We have a range of measures which we undertake to protect our marine environment. The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 is just one part of the broad range of measures for which the government has a responsibility—to ensure that we are up to date; we are reforming where reform is necessary and appropriate; we are where we are required to be; and, where prudence would dictate, we are always innovative in the way we set about making our response.

In this particular piece of legislation the priority in the changes is to make our shipping system safer, for crews as well as for the environment. And we do not have to limit it there. There are people who are engaged in maritime rescues—whose responsibility is maritime rescues—for whom life would also be safer if the systems of policing safety in our sea lanes were maintained in an up-to-date fashion and if every piece of effective technology and innovation in law can be used to make our monitoring systems, our reportage systems and our systems of preparedness far more effective.

Changes are wanted by industry and by shipping stakeholders, to address outdated safety and environmental protection legislation that currently stands. Amending the four acts will strengthen shipping safety and maritime environmental protection. It will also update the penalties for offences. In every walk of life there are laws that need to be followed. In this area, over the years, there has been a sorry record of abuse, where out of sight is out of mind, in the view of many shipping operators. The examples of pollution of the sea by ships read like a litany of disasters over the years. The changes and the new insistence, by governments worldwide, on stronger protection measures are welcomed.

The member for Oxley made a whole series of comments. He harped on about issues such as safety, security and the environment, but it all came back to one factor: the intention of the Labor Party to protect elements of the shipping industry that are the preserve of the Labor Party’s union bosses and their power. We saw that in relation to the waterfront dispute and the efforts by the government to introduce a far more effective waterfront regime.

It is no wonder that shipping in Australia was flatlining under the Labor Party. You could not resuscitate the Australian shipping industry with a Packer whacker under Labor. It was about as dead as it could possibly get. The government’s changes in relation to waterfront reform, in particular—being the initial response of the government—introduced new opportunities for Australians to be involved in the shipping industry far more effectively, competitively and efficiently—not only allowing Australian industry to be involved in shipping but allowing Australian industry to benefit through shipping.

Every cent that was being wasted on featherbedded union conditions on the waterfront was a cent that was lost to productive capacity for Australia, for a competitive stance for Australia. It is an absolute travesty that for many years the Labor Party refused to act on the waterfront. It claimed that it was impossible to gain efficiencies on the waterfront and that the repeated calls from all sectors of Australian industry for an improved and more efficient waterfront just could not be delivered.

We saw a series of measures by the Labor Party—inquiries and pseudo reforms that did nothing more than simply rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanicgive a new sinecure to another group of overpaid people already sucking the lifeblood out of the waterfront of Australia. We are now in a position where, thanks to the courageous reforms undertaken by former minister Peter Reith and supported wholeheartedly by members of the government, the container rates on the waterfronts around Australia have ratcheted up dramatically. There is a new sense of optimism that our shipping capabilities are world class. Our ability to process cargoes through the wharves is up to scratch with anything existing in the world—in fact, we can beat that. The apathy of Labor members when confronted with the power of their union mates over the waterfront was an absolute national shame and a disgrace. They did not put the nation first. They put first the dodgy claims of people who really were just trying to maintain a sinecure against the great weight of the whole of the Australian national interest at that time.

We now see the rhetoric in relation to this bill from the member for Oxley. He progresses on and says, ‘We expect the same sorts of sinecures to be extended to our union mates in relation to shipping.’ I said earlier that the reforms we made on the waterfront invigorated Australian industry and opened up new possibilities in the minds of Australian industry for the development of shipping. I think we have seen that. We have seen advances being made in Australian shipping companies. Patrick, Toll Holdings and those sorts of companies have made great strides in recent times—and we have seen only the very start of it. Over time the new understanding that we as a nation can process cargo efficiently—and the opportunities that flow from that—is starting to make its way into the broader community. An awareness of that connectivity is something that has only just begun to dawn on many in Australian industries, because for many years we were so moribund, so completely dead in the water in every respect—Australia, a land girt by sea, girt by union domination and girt by cosy union mates who insist on sucking the lifeblood out of our shipping industry.

Now the member for Oxley and his mates want to extend that in relation to on board ship. It is necessary for us to provide increased flexibility for Australian producers and to ensure that there is security—and that is what this legislation is all about. To say that every time there is a ship load of ammonium nitrate—a fertiliser that Australian farmers require; they continue to need to use it, despite the problems caused by it being able to be used as an explosive—special vessels need to be manned by ALP union mates to ply the seas of Australia is a ridiculous incursion into what is an important piece of the lifeblood of a large part of Australian industry: the ready availability of effective fertiliser for cropping.

The fact is that we are seeing alternatives to ammonium nitrate. As time goes by, we will see a trend to those more effective and safer types of fertiliser on Australian farms. Therefore, this question of an ALP fleet of union buddies plying the seas and carrying ammonium nitrate can remain where it is—a fantasy in the minds of the members opposite.

In this legislation we also look at the question of lighthouses. Lighthouses are the traffic lights of the sea: they identify the lanes on which vessels travel. It is important that we continue to provide more and more innovative forms of navigation. The lighthouses, despite the innovations of GPS, omega navigation and various other forms of very accurate satellite guided systems, remain a very important part of the network. We need to protect against consequential loss of and damage to life and property, the economic impact and the environmental impact of ships running aground. Even if they do not split apart and spill their cargoes, there can still be horrendous damage caused by ships running aground.

I recall a vessel running aground on the reef north of Cairns some time ago. It cut a huge swathe through the coral. Even though the vessel remained intact and was able to be taken off the reef and continue on its way, the damage to the coral was quite significant. A huge area was flattened and destroyed. We have to bear in mind that protection of the Great Barrier Reef is an important necessity for us in Queensland, to maintain our incredibly important tourism industry. We need to focus on the reef and we need to be able to provide support for it.

Around lighthouses, there is an increasing problem with trespassing and vandalism. We require greater deterrence. Improved penalties are needed; strengthened penalties are needed. You cannot have a situation where, because of vandalism and trespass in the lighthouse grounds, the functionality of the lighthouse is lost and ships are placed at risk. Penalties are currently quite low, particularly when the consequences are considered.

If you damage or disable a navigation aid, you place at risk the environment, property and lives. The change of penalty from $200 to 10 years imprisonment for intentionally engaging in conduct that destroys or damages a marine navigational aid is welcomed. That penalty is comparable with the penalty for intentionally damaging Commonwealth property under the Crimes Act. Damage to a lighthouse that could cause a cataclysm on the sea is quite obviously potentially a heck of a lot more damaging and more dangerous than damage to other Commonwealth property in many cases. Trespass is also made consistent under this legislation, with trespass on Commonwealth property made consistent in relation to the extent of the penalties that are applicable.

Under the Navigation Act we increase penalties for people falsely representing themselves as qualified or people who perform duties as a master, officer or seaman without the proper qualifications. In Queensland we know all about people presenting themselves without the correct qualifications. We have seen the consequences of that in the health system. We have seen people maimed and injured because the Queensland health system was unable to simply check a website and determine whether someone was or was not properly qualified.

See this speech in context