Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to address the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007, which I think is a very important bill before the House. In doing so, can I say on behalf of the opposition that we have been banging on about these issues for a number of years. I first raised the issue of maritime security and the question of proper security checks of overseas crew when I was shadow minister for migration in the lead-up to the 1998 election. That is a considerable time ago. So it is only now, because of September 11, that the Australian government has got serious about aviation and maritime security in Australia.

The truth is that the opposition have raised these complex issues for a number of years. We saw the gaping holes which created a major potential risk to Australia in aviation and maritime security long before the Howard government did. I am very pleased to see this bill come before the parliament because it addresses—and it is about time—the historical dereliction of duty on the part of the Howard government to get serious about maritime security and carry out comprehensive security checks on foreign crews.

This is something the maritime industry, including employers, workers and their unions, have wanted for years. It is something that not only the Australian community but also the international community rightfully expects in the global fight against terrorism. The truth is that Australia—which, as a trading island nation, is heavily dependent on the aviation and maritime industries—has been lagging behind with respect to its responsibilities. As shadow minister for transport, the area where this bill is of vital importance, I believe this is a very important issue. It has been publicly raised on many occasions, both outside and inside the parliament, by Labor members and senators.

Let me now deal with a few facts. Until now, when it came to foreign crews, the names on a ship’s manifest had been checked against existing databases—usually after the ship is berthed—to see if any of them were persons we did not want in Australia. Imagine that system—checking names more often than not after the ship is berthed. The damage could have already been done. The Howard government says that it is vigilant about the security of Australia. It has been walking tall and priding itself on its practical approach to securing Australia as a nation. Today’s debate proves that, yet again, the government is tired and lazy; it is playing catch-up on complex policy issues. The current system effectively means that there is no way of knowing whether the people on the ship are who they say they are and that no security checks are carried out on them in any case. That is the system that for far too long the Howard government has told the Australian community is satisfactory.

But there is a different system in place for our own seafarers, which is why I have not been able to understand or fathom the reasoning behind the approach adopted by the Howard government to date. There is one set of rules for foreign seafarers and a far more demanding and rigorous set of rules for Australian seafarers. I agree with those rigorous rules which have been applied to our own aviation and maritime workers in recent times. As is appropriate, Australian seafarers have been subject to the most rigorous and thorough security checks by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, which are the appropriate agencies to carry out such security checks. That was part of the aviation and maritime security regime put in place by the department in close cooperation and consultation with the opposition in the last parliament. It also involved closer consultation from both sides with industry, including the workers’ representatives to the Australian trade union movement, who adopted in a cooperative way what were demanding policy issues. All involved in the development of those acts of parliament going to aviation and maritime security are to be commended for the effort that they put into developing the regime which currently applies in Australia.

There is one outstanding demand that the opposition raised with the government during that debate: doing something about foreign seafarers. Our own seafarers are required to hold a current maritime security identification card, similar to those used to clear workers in our airports. That is something the opposition supported. Aviation security identification cards certify that the holders are people of good character and good background who can work in security sensitive areas. This is an exceptionally important security measure and the Australian public can rest assured that they are in safe hands when in Australian airports.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the way this government has handled maritime security. As my colleague the member for Brisbane and shadow minister for homeland security recently said—and I think he put it exceptionally well:

... the Howard government hand out permits for those flag of convenience crews like it was a Friday night chook raffle at the local pub.

That says it all: ‘If you want one, you can have one. Don’t worry about us; we are not going to do a thorough security check as to your background. We are not particularly worried about foreign crews, about whom we know nothing, coming to Australian ports.’ These foreign crews are sometimes crewing vessels carrying ammonium nitrate, which, if not handled correctly and safely, represents a potential time bomb for the Australian community. The Howard government is to be condemned for its neglect.

This bill is here today because of demands by the opposition over an extended period. It also represents what the Australian community expects and what the Australian maritime industry was prepared to accept long ago. Foreign crews and their families will now be quite appropriately required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia. This bill will create a new maritime crew visa to replace the current special purpose visa and other visas currently in place, which were subject to corruption and rorting—but that did not worry the Australian government. Importantly, if this bill is carried by both houses, it will result in each foreign crew member and the spouse and dependent children of such a crew member being subjected to security checking before a visa is granted. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have said on numerous occasions in the House and in the Main Committee, it is about time. It is long overdue.

But the opposition, as reflected in previous speeches by my colleagues today, has a very firm view that there is much more that still needs to be done when it comes to Australian maritime security. I join my colleague the member for Watson and shadow minister for immigration in supporting his second reading amendment condemning the government for its failure to provide necessary maritime security and, in doing so, creating a security environment that leaves Australians exposed on a number of fronts.

That is what the debate is about: the fact that the Howard government for far too long has tolerated a situation in which we, as a community, have been exposed unnecessarily to weaknesses in our antiterrorism regime. The Howard government is also to be condemned for its failure to provide the right policy and regulatory framework for a strong Australian shipping industry. We are a trading nation, heavily dependent on our exports of goods and services. Central to our economic future are viable and safe maritime and aviation industries.

We will continue to bang on, in this parliament and in the Australian community, about the misuse of ships of convenience by the Howard government. Ships of convenience were embraced by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments on the basis that they were about supporting Australian industry. We also accepted that in some instances Australian crewed vessels were not available. So it was then a question of how to develop a practical system which worked to the benefit of Australian industry and job creation. That is why we put in place, and used sparingly, single and continuous voyage permits as a measure to handle peak shipping demand periods. That is what it was about.

That is the system that the Howard government confronted when it was elected in March 1996. But unfortunately, on election, the Howard government’s ideological approach to shipping in Australia was about exporting Australian jobs. It had one objective in mind: it was hell-bent on destroying the Australian maritime unions. It was not prepared to accept that over the previous 13 years those unions, on behalf of their workforce, had confronted huge change. The unions understood that for the coastal and international shipping industry in Australia to survive they had to be competitive, and that meant a proper cooperative dialogue between government, industry and maritime unions to create an environment where we could compete internationally and domestically.

But the Howard government, in its extreme campaign against the rights of Australian workers, has used single and continuous voyage permits to replace Australian ships and Australian seafarers on a routine basis. It has done so without any proper consideration. It turned its eye away from the main game. In embracing single and continuous voyage permits, it accepted a system of foreign crews to the detriment of Australian jobs, which effectively exposed us on the security front.

On the question of Australian seafarers I want to say that we once had a proud Maritime College in Tasmania. It was a college that prided itself on training young Australians and created terrific career opportunities in the seagoing industry. The truth is that in the 21st century our Maritime College in Tasmania has had to focus more on overseas students for export earnings than the training of Australia’s young—our best. In doing that they have denied young Australians employment opportunities in a terrific industry. The government are responsible not only for exposing our nation to major security risks but also for ripping apart the Australian Maritime College and undermining decent training opportunities for young Australians. They are to be condemned on all fronts.

These are just a couple of examples of the failures of the Howard government to ensure that, as required by law, all ships do the right thing by Australia. What is security identification about in terms of crewing? It is about all ships advising details of their cargo and crew 48 hours before they reach an Australian port. What is wrong with that? It is not as if Australia is less than 48 hours from the major shipping ports of the world. It is a fair request by the Australian government. I raise this issue because last year information given to the Senate informed the Australian community that just 67 per cent of ships coming to Australian ports actually complied with that fundamental requirement. A third of ships simply did not comply with the law, and the Howard government, yet again, did nothing about fixing this problem.

Half of those ships did not inform authorities about their cargo and crew until they had actually berthed. That is an amazing situation. ‘Come in; we’ll open the gates. Tie up. We don’t know who’s on board, and if you do damage on the way in, so what? It’s not our concern because we are more concerned about destroying maritime unions and the Australian coastal international shipping fleet. If you endanger the Australian public on the way through then so be it, because ideology counts more than jobs for Australians and doing the right thing by the Australian community.’ I simply say that it is too late, then, to act.

The Howard government are exposing our maritime points of entry to the hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods like explosive grade ammonium nitrate, to the potential for terrorists to smuggle explosives and weapons into this country and to the potential for other criminal activity, including drug running, to run riot—to the detriment of the Australian community. Why haven’t they acted? They have turned a blind eye to those serious threats to the wellbeing and economic prosperity of Australia.

I am also concerned about another problem. I turn to the lack of commitment by the Howard government to work with industry and the maritime unions to ensure that well-trained, highly skilled Australian seafarers maintain their pre-eminent role in a growing export opportunity—the LNG industry. It was appropriate—albeit because of government interference—that we signed major long-term LNG contracts with China. But the truth is that, because of interference by the Prime Minister and pressure placed on the private sector, the costs we have reaped from those exports were less than what we could have achieved. The Prime Minister was more concerned, as usual, about his political hide at that particular point in time, and he wanted a huge export contract to take pressure off him.

Guess what else he did in negotiating and pressuring the private sector about that contract? He not only sold Australia short on the issue of export earnings in terms of the price we actually achieved but also effectively neglected the proper process of ensuring that some Australian seafarers were employed on those ships taking that very valuable cargo to China. If you have a look at the contracts, you see that there is no mention of Australian seafarers. So here we are exporting this highly valuable product, in a world that is worried about energy security, to nations such as China, and there is not one job for Australian seafarers. This government wants to say to the Australian community in the lead-up to the next election: ‘We care about jobs. We can handle the issue of security.’ The facts tell a different story.

For over 25 years—and this is what the government should have been thinking about in those LNG contracts—the continuity of operations agreement between the North West Shelf venture and the MUA has ensured the safe, reliable and on-time delivery of LNG cargoes to customers around the world, particularly Japan. The agreement has served industry well and has served Australia well. It is about doing the right thing by all. It is one of the strengths of the Australian LNG industry, which is also going to grow in importance in the foreseeable future.

We all know that Australian seafarers are properly trained and skilled. They are skilled in pollution control, the safety of life at sea, dangerous goods handling and storage, and so on. You know the issues as well as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton. But we do not have the same degree of confidence in the current regime when it comes to foreign crews. We are already exposing our maritime points of entry to the safety, security and environmental hazards of foreign crews handing dangerous goods like explosive grade ammonium nitrate without any knowledge as to their training and skills in this area. I would be concerned if Australian involvement in the LNG transportation task is weakened and replaced with further flag of convenience ships because I do not want to see this risk extended to the LNG trade.

In conclusion, Australia’s reputation as a reliable LNG supplier is at stake because of government policy on flag of convenience vessels. This is important for the security not only of our ports but also, importantly, of our customers’ ports. They want reliability and security of supply. That is the key to signing contracts in a tough global world. The second reading amendment has a practical focus on the weaknesses of the Howard government on issues of vital concern to the Australian community. It is about Labor supporting the step forward this bill takes in improving security checks on foreign crews. Labor would also like to see the minister and the department doing much more to improve maritime security in this country and to maintain a strong Australian shipping industry based on creating jobs for Australians. That is what this is about: guaranteeing employment and training opportunities for Australians, something the Howard government is not concerned about. All it is doing at the moment is living off the back of the wonderful resource boom in which Australia is doing so well.

So I commend the bill to the House but in doing so ask the Australian community to have regard to the second reading amendment moved by the opposition, because it rams home to this government in no uncertain terms that it has only done part of the job, as usual. It is a tired, worn-out government and it is time for a change. I say in conclusion that these changes are long overdue.

See this speech in context