Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before the debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 was interrupted I was talking about the flag of convenience ships flagged in Antigua, with an unvetted foreign crew, carrying the highly dangerous cargo of ammonium nitrate from Newcastle to Gladstone. If that cargo was carried by road or rail, strict regulations would apply to ensure the safety and security of the Australian public. But there are no such controls when cargo of this type is carried into and out of our sea ports—none at all. The government allows foreign crews to work unchecked on our coastline, often for many months at a time—something that would never be tolerated in the land transport system, nor indeed in the air transport system.

This bill increases the amount of compensation payable for the damage caused by the spillage of oil from ships. Labor, of course, supports that measure. The bill makes provision for the establishment of a fund to supplement compensation when the full amount owed is unable to be obtained from the tanker owner. The fund is financed by a levy on the industry, and Labor supports that measure too. The bill significantly increases the limits on liabilities by about 50 per cent. This is consistent with the resolution of the International Maritime Organisation and it also has Labor’s support. The bill expands the definition of ‘plastic’ so that there is an absolute prohibition on ships disposing of incinerator ashes from plastic products which may contain toxic or heavy metal residues into the ocean. Again, this provision has Labor’s support.

When an industry is responsible for damage in the environment, that industry should pay for it. If the industry causes damage to our pristine coastline, it should be held responsible for the clean-up. I do not think that many would argue with this principle, and it is good to see it being applied in the industry. I look forward to the government increasing the fines and to the level of compensation being updated regularly, to keep the incentives strong for careful behaviour. I would like to see this principle applied to many other industries as well.

In this regard, I draw your attention to the commendable work of Robert Kennedy Jr in the clean-up and protection of New York City waterways over the past few decades. Robert Kennedy Jr is a son of assassinated Senator Robert Kennedy, and he was in Australia last year to talk about his work. The Riverkeeper movement, as it was called, was started on New York’s Hudson River in 1966, by a group called the ‘coalition of commercial and recreational fishermen to reclaim the Hudson River from the polluters’. It has been extremely successful in legal action against the polluters of waterways not only in New York but right across the USA. I note that Riverkeeper branches have started up in Australia.

Labor supports protection of the environment and is pleased to see that the maritime industry will be required to take greater responsibility for any environmental damage it causes. But while this is a commendable principle and has Labor’s support, I point out that the bill before us does absolutely nothing to strengthen the maritime industry in this country—absolutely nothing. It seems that that task is not even on the government’s radar. Yet government assistance to support the industry is very much needed.

Let me point out some unsavoury facts about the shipping industry in this country. Australian registered and crewed vessels have been steadily diminishing over the past 15 years, and flags of convenience vessels are prevalent on the Australian coast. Single-voyage permits and continuous voyage permits are issued to flags of convenience vessels where Australian vessels are not available. However, this provision is not monitored, is constantly abused, and available Australian vessels are regularly passed over.

Australia does not now have any vessels in the container line trade, apart from Bass Strait services to Tasmania. Australian vessels in the liquid natural gas trade to Japan are under threat, as is any involvement of Australia’s shipping in the flurry of new gas deals with China. In fact, Australian shipping has been reduced to its involvement with bulk commodities, like iron ore, coal, bauxite and gypsum, around our own coast. This means that opportunities for Australians in the maritime industry are severely restricted. Most potential and past merchant seamen are now forced to find work in the offshore oil and gas industry.

There is a real need for an Australian shipping policy. Without it, the industry will continue to wither. One wonders why any national government would willingly allow one of its fundamental industries to wane. It is simply irresponsible. It seems the Howard government is content to let Australian shipping simply disappear while exploited Third World seafarers work the vessels, entering our ports and transporting our cargo. It seems that the government is requiring that Australian seafarers either work for Third World wages or they do not work at all. This threatens the livelihood of our seafarers, and it seems to be a scheme in which the Howard government is shamefully complicit.

I mentioned a company called Destiny Abalone, currently located near Wallaroo in South Australia’s Spencer Gulf. In September last year, it made its Australian crew redundant and replaced it with a crew from China and the Ukraine. The purpose was simply to replace Australian seafarers with foreign seafarers on reduced wages and conditions. The replacement of Australian crews with cheaper labour on temporary visas is an issue that must be brought to the public’s attention. Of course, it has been recently, with workers being used in South Australia in the car industry and a whole range of other industries. Then there is the case of the Mawashi Al Gasseem, a Kuwaiti registered, 30-year-old livestock carrier. This vessel was retained for many months last year at Port Adelaide’s Outer Harbour, not far from where I lived. I could see it every morning. After being arrested by the fuel supplier OW Bunker over a $US700,000 debt, it owed its crew of 63 Filipinos and six Indians in excess of $US450,000 in wages.

The Maritime Union of Australia sought to stop the humiliation and the abuse of these Third World seafarers on this vessel. It obtained legal representation for the crew and had a caveat put on the vessel on the crew’s behalf. The vessel was eventually sold. As a result of the union’s work, the crew were paid the wages that they were owed. I commend the work of the Maritime Union, particularly the South Australian branch, which is located in my seat of Port Adelaide, and Jamie Newlyn for the good work on behalf of their seafarer colleagues. I also commend members of the local community who did so much to look after those seafarers. The effort took significant time and resources, but it yielded a very satisfactory outcome, although a lengthy one.

However, it remains a disgrace, an absolute bloody disgrace, that the government has allowed the shipping industry in this country to come to this. So far the only shipping industry policy the government has had—and I am sorry to say it this way—is to put the rottweilers on the wharves and lock out workers. This government has presented nothing in the way of support for the industry. It seems that there is only one strategy and that is to drive costs down, with a consequence of that strategy being to shut down the industry in this country and hand it over to foreign shipping owners and crews. We do not seem to have the same attitude to Singapore Airlines, do we? Why is that? It is a strategy that is driving the Australian shipping industry aground. Its future without sensible government support is bleak. That means that the futures of Australian families and communities, which rely on the industry, are also bleak. This is what is happening in the maritime industry today. Unfortunately, it is no good looking to the government for help. It is complicit in this arrangement to replace Australian workers with overseas labour. Australian shipping does not need a handout to survive. It can survive and thrive with just a fair go and with the support of a government showing some interest in the future.

The government’s preparedness to sell out Australian shipping is economically foolish. It is also very foolish on national security, and is yet another example of blind ideology driving the government, against all reason and against the national interest. We have a large coastline. It is very hard to monitor and defend. We were shown this weakness in our merchant navy. There was a failure to recognise the importance of what the merchant navy did in the Second World War. There was a blindness to the inability to effectively supply our troops in East Timor, even in recent years. It has not registered on this government at all.

I remember that the United Kingdom had a policy like this at one stage and almost abandoned its merchant navy. To its good fortune, it has seen the light and has again tried to encourage a strong merchant navy for the United Kingdom. We have not. We are geographically very isolated from many of our key trading partners and it makes no sense to me or to many Australians to be at the mercy of foreign shipping operators and to risk our national security because we are too lazy to bite the bullet as a maritime nation and have an effective merchant navy.

I call on this government to stop its destruction of Australian shipping and to work to develop a policy for the shipping industry to once again make the industry in this country strong. It is in our national interest. It is in our future interest. The lack of regard for shipping and the ignoring of the danger signs in a very complex world—and an even more complicated world over the last two or three years—are just beyond my comprehension. The ignorance is alarming. I would hope—although I see little hope, given the current attitude of this government—that something is done about the Australian maritime industry. It is not good enough, and Australians deserve better.

See this speech in context