Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the provisions of the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 and, in doing so, to reject out of hand the un-Australian remarks by the previous speaker, the member for Blair, in which he clearly indicated to the House, without reservation, that he would sooner have people sometimes operating on illegal visas and not paying taxes taking Australian jobs—remarks which, so far as I am concerned, would be unacceptable to the great majority of his constituents in Blair.

As has been said, this bill contains a number of technical amendments to a series of acts which go to the very heart of an important industry in Australia, the maritime industry. As we all know, Australia has a proud maritime history. Much of our contemporary history is based on the brave men and women who took to the seas and settled this island nation. In recent times we have also relied on seafarers in times of conflict. Unlike the member for Blair, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Australian merchant seafarers who have defended this nation. They were prepared to put their lives on the line for the safety and welfare of Australia. To have those people denigrated by the member for Blair is unacceptable to them, their families and their communities. We also recently commemorated victory in the Pacific, honouring the end of World War II. It is worth mentioning the contribution made by the merchant navy in that conflict.

Today, as a large isolated island nation, we also accept that Australia remains heavily reliant on the shipping industry, both domestically and internationally. In the middle of a resources boom, which is really driving the Australian economy, we need to stop to think just how dependent we are on the seafaring industry.

That takes me to the question of our living standards, which are continuing to improve. Disposable incomes grow and globalisation brings about global trading in more and more commodities, which is to the benefit of Australia. Effectively, that means that the worldwide freight task is growing at an almost exponential rate. Just think about the fact that 20 per cent of Australian exports are energy exports. When we consider the expected growth in the demand for energy of over 100 per cent worldwide between now and 2030, we can start to appreciate the importance of the shipping industry to Australia’s economic future.

In addition, we have to acknowledge that our domestic freight task is predicted to double over the next decade. The Australian shipping industry needs to be well placed to take some of that load up. There are obviously certain commodities which have to be moved by sea, for a range of reasons—such as safety, national security, amenity and transport efficiency. In addition, there are significant defence and national interest reasons for supporting the Australian shipping industry.

Unlike the Howard government, the opposition is proud to take the view that Australia can be both a nation of shippers and a shipping nation. We can actually do both, and it is about time we started to pull our weight on both fronts. As reflected in the second reading amendment moved by the member for Oxley, the opposition therefore condemns the government for its wholesale abuse of the single and continuous voyage permit provisions of the Navigation Act. We believe that this action has been deliberately designed to undermine Australian jobs and, in doing so, to undermine the viability of the Australian merchant fleet.

There is clear evidence of contrived unavailability of Australian ships, which has unfairly favoured foreign ships with foreign labour that is cheap. There are serious questions about visa entitlements and approval, and about working under substandard conditions of employment that are unacceptable in terms of international conventions with respect to the rights of seafarers. The outcome of this has been the loss of a maritime skills base in Australia; the opening up of the Australian coastline to potential environmental disaster; and ongoing, major security threats, which was also touched on by the member for Oxley, with express reference to the movement of ammonium nitrate.

Just as we do not support Third World wages or substandard working conditions in other industries—although there seems to be a view that that is what should occur in Australia, based on the comments of the member for Blair—we should not accept them, I believe, in the transport sector. We as a nation should not accept that practice in interstate shipping, the same way in which we should not accept it in the manufacturing industry, the resource sector, nursing, teaching or any other sector of employment in Australia.

We suggest that the threats posed by foreign shipping on the Australian coastline should not be underestimated, because they actively represent serious threats to our nation’s wellbeing, prosperity and security. They include defence, security, marine environment, the future of our tourism industry—a huge export earner and job engine in Australia—border protection and the all-important issue of how we train Australians in maritime skills.

The companies involved—and let us be square about this—and their workforces have no allegiance to Australia and its safety and security. They pay no taxes in this country and are effectively guest labour in the Australian transport system to the detriment of Australia’s welfare and to the detriment of future job opportunities for Australians.

Unlike the Howard government, the opposition went to the last election with a commitment to this very important industry because we thought it was not only about moving freight but also about our security and the international struggle against the threat of terrorism. The opposition has long held the view that domestic shipping can and should play its important role in the Australian transport industry. The opposition’s maritime policy reaffirmed our support for the domestic industry and the national interest benefits that accrue from having a viable industry using Australian ships with Australian crews working under Australian conditions.

Labor also recognises the value of the cabotage provisions of the Navigation Act and the need to restore these provisions to their original intent as temporary licences for ships to operate on the Australian coast when Australian shipping vessels are not available. Unfortunately, the government’s response to this crisis in the Australian shipping industry is to stick its head in the sand and tinker around the edges.

The provisions of this bill include, firstly, amendments to the Lighthouse Act 1911 to provide for the maintenance of marine navigational aids and higher penalties for damaging aids or failing to report such damage; and, secondly, a range of amendments to the Navigation Act, which is the principal Commonwealth act relating to the safety of ships. These include revising pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified by regulation, which is exceptionally important; revising provisions relating to the reporting of ship movements; revising provisions relating to alcohol and other drugs and allowing for the taking of mouth swabs to test for alcohol and other drugs; providing immunity from civil claims for pilots and pilotage providers; removing the requirement of six months notice before the minister can cancel a continuing voyage permit; and increasing penalties for other major offences that pose a threat to life or the environment.

They also include amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1981, which implements the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. These amendments require Australian chemical tankers to prepare and carry a noxious liquid substances plan—which is exceptionally important for a variety of reasons—and provide that security where paid by the owner or master in the event of a pollution breach must cover the maximum amount of penalties that may be payable by all members of the crew. Why should the Australian taxpayer bear that cost? The amendments also include clarifying that documents that may be served on the ship’s agent include documents—

See this speech in context