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

Poor old member for Fisher! No wonder he has never made it to the front bench to be a minister; it is reflected in the nature of his ignorant question. The issue of wages and conditions of Australian seafarers is not a barrier to the merchant services in Australia. They are highly efficient, which is really our competitive advantage internationally. It comes back to government policy. It is not a question of wages and conditions of employment; it is about what is right for Australia. We have a government that is prepared to not only export jobs but, in doing so, based on false suggestions of unfair wages and conditions of employment, also place Australia at serious risk in terms of the nature of the people on some of these foreign vessels. Some of the vessels have historically been ships of shame, which potentially endangers the Australian environment, especially the state of Queensland, where the member for Fisher comes from, with respect to the importance of the tourism industry. With issues such as ammonium nitrate, why would you have foreign crews not paying taxes and with serious questions about their visa entitlements on the Australian coastline at a time of major international threat from terrorist organisations? It comes back to good government policy. It is about time the member for Fisher fronted up to his national responsibilities and what is in Australia’s national interests, rather than playing petty politics, as reflected in the ignorance of his own party and the fact that they have no vision for the future of Australia.

In that context, this bill, importantly—and this is why we support aspects of this bill—clarifies that documents that may be served on a ship’s agent include documents that may be served on the owner, the master or any member of the crew. Amendments also go to the Shipping Registration Act to provide that mortgages can be removed from the register at the request of the mortgagee, allowing the minister to delegate his or her powers under the act to a staff member of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and provide for access to the Australian Register of Ships by electronic means. It is all about efficiency and control in terms of accountability of the Australian shipping industry, which is exceptionally important, and foreign vessels.

I also indicate to the House that there are a series of technical legislative amendments that do not recognise the value of the Australian industry and the need for a full-scale review of the current cabotage provisions, taking into account all relevant factors, not simply cost and the ideological obsession, as clearly represented by the member for Fisher’s question just a moment ago. It is for this reason that the opposition, while supporting the bill, has moved the second reading amendment standing in the name of the member for Oxley. As has been indicated, the second reading amendment goes to a number of important issues such as the wholesale destruction of the industry and the consequences for Australian jobs, skills, marine security et cetera.

In closing, I want to raise a couple of remarks about what I believe is an important recent breakthrough, which goes to the role of the International Labour Organisation. I would like to touch on one of the issues contained in the opposition’s second reading amendment—that of the carriage of high-consequence and dangerous goods on the Australian coastline, notably ammonium nitrate. It is well known that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates have used ammonium nitrate as part of their deadly campaigns, which can be a major threat to Australia. On that note, we need only think of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 and the attacks on embassies in the 1990s. These are serious threats and the Australian government should be vigilant about doing everything possible to remove any potential threat in the movement of ammonium nitrate.

I believe the government has made no attempt to restrict the carriage of these cargoes, despite all of its security rhetoric. On the contrary, since 1 July 2005, at least five single voyage permits have been issued for the carriage of ammonium nitrate between Australian ports. That represents 10,800 tonnes of this highly dangerous fertiliser carried under five permits. The opposition contend that the carriage of dangerous goods such as ammonium nitrate by foreign ships must stop now. We believe that the safest way to transport ammonium nitrate and other fertilisers around Australia that are vital to Australian rural industry is on Australian ships with Australian crews. When a secure ship with a secure crew sails out of a secure port into another port, the exposure of risk is minimised.

That also takes me to the issue of a new maritime convention. I draw to the attention of the House a maritime convention of 2006. In doing so, I call on the Australian government and all state and territory governments to, through a proper consultative process, including industry, urgently ratify this new convention. The convention, appropriately, includes a bill of rights for seafarers, which was adopted on 23 February this year by the International Labour Organisation with a vote of 314 in favour, none against and just four abstentions.

I also remind the House, as a former member of the ILO governing body, that this is not a workers’ parliament; this is an international organisation that has put a huge amount of effort, following consultations with industry over an extended period, into rationalising the existing conventions that have long existed with respect to the operation of the maritime industry. The ILO historically has always prided itself on a particular commitment to the maritime industry. The tripartite process with respect to the development of maritime conventions, including representatives of government and equal representatives of employers and workers, has been one of the most hardworking groups in the ILO and has endeavoured to make the ILO relevant in the 21st century. It is to be commended on all the work over recent years that has gone into the development of this convention, which received overwhelming support in February this year.

I suggest to the House that the overwhelming vote of support, including that of Australia—and I am delighted with the role of the Australian government in voting for this convention—illustrates the importance of this convention as a single instrument for the international regulation of safety, training and pollution in the maritime industry. We should not forget that it is the culmination, in terms of dedication and effort, of five years of intensive negotiations and it has the strong backing of maritime employers in Australia—absolute commitment from employers.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Prior to the suspension of the Main Committee I was referring to the importance of the maritime convention 2006.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Before the division in the House, I was making my final remarks on the maritime convention 2006, indicating to the chamber that this convention has important ramifications not just for the exploited seafarers of flag of convenience vessels but also for Australian seafarers. In the international environment it is regarded as a benchmark for other global industries, reflecting the success of the ILO in cleaning up what were outdated conventions across a range of aspects of the seafarers industry. As the ILO Director-General said, it is a landmark development for working conditions. The convention sets minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship, including hours of work and rest, accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection. It is what any decent society ought to provide to all workers irrespective of the country they embark from. It is also exceptionally important because, unlike previous conventions, this maritime convention of 2006 has teeth with legally binding standards which can be enforced. I commend the convention to the House.

In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the second reading amendment moved by the member for Oxley but also request that the minister, in response, advise the House of the government’s intention as to how it progresses the ratification of the maritime convention 2006 following its ratification by the ILO on 23 February with the support of Australian employers, the shipping industry, workers’ representatives and the government. I commend the convention to the House and merely state in conclusion that it is a major breakthrough with respect to the nature of the work in the ILO in one of the foundation industries that the ILO has been paying attention to since its origins. It also reflects the capacity of the modern ILO to front up to renewing and reviewing outdated conventions to reflect the nature of the 21st century.

See this speech in context