House debates
Monday, 17 June 2013
Bills
Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013; Second Reading
5:12 pm
Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
I have listened to all of the opposition speakers who have spoken on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 and all I heard from each and every one of them was an attack on the unions, an attack on the minister, talk about refugee policy, which has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever, and talk about border protection. Not once did any member opposite specifically address the substance and the merits of this bill, which seeks to ensure that Australia's interests in offshore projects are indeed protected. I commend the member for Wills, who pointed that out so well and so clearly in his contribution to this debate.
Coalition members would like to see the multinationals that control the resource industry in Australia, both onshore and offshore, continue to operate without any restrictions and responsibilities. It is time that that came to an end. There is no logical reason whatsoever why the resources that are found offshore should be treated differently to the resources found on land in Australia and why workers who work on those resources on land should be treated any differently to the workers who are dealing with the resources found in the oceans.
This legislation arises from the Federal Court decision in the Allseas v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship case. The court found that the foreign workers in that case—those on board the two pipe-laying vessels Lorelay and Solitairewere not within the Australian migration zone and therefore did not require Australian visas. As a result of that decision, a task force was convened. I make it clear that that was done by the previous minister for immigration, not the current minister, whom members opposite seek to condemn and criticise because of what they refer to as his self-interest in this matter.
The task force was asked to consider a response to the Federal Court decision so as to ensure that those projects did in fact fall within Australian jurisdiction. I note that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives the Australian government the jurisdiction to do exactly that, and to implement the control that is required in order for Australia to protect its sovereign rights with respect to those mineral, oil or gas exploration projects that fall within Australia's economic zone. I also note that these amendments will ensure that areas currently in coastal waters and administered by the states and the Northern Territory will also be included in the Australian migration zone. Again, I believe that is appropriate.
If these amendments are passed it will mean that foreign workers, working from ocean vessels within Australian zones, will require a visa in order to do so. It is no different to a foreign worker working on the mainland. In my view there is no logical reason, as I have said earlier, why job-creation projects offshore, but within Australian jurisdiction, should be treated any differently to jobs created on the mainland. This becomes even more relevant when we know that offshore petroleum, mineral and gas exploration and development provide Australia with huge economic potential. Other speakers have talked about $100 billion of projects in the pipeline and I am sure that those figures are, in fact, correct. That means there will be many jobs created as a result of those investment decisions—investment decisions that are made under the jurisdiction and control of the Australian government. But what we currently have is a situation where, once the investment is made, the jobs that are likely to arise from those investment decisions do not go to Australians. They go to, in most cases at the moment, foreign workers.
This legislation, contrary to what those opposite would have you believe, is not about preventing foreign workers from working in Australian maritime zones, because where Australian workers cannot be found to fill these jobs then, just as is the case with all of the jobs we have in Australia, people will be entitled to apply to have foreign workers come in and do the work. In fact, this government currently has a skilled migration program that accounts for about two-thirds of all migrants that come into this country. It is very much the case that this government welcomes foreign workers coming into this country to fill the skill shortages we often have and which would otherwise prevent businesses and investments from proceeding—so we are very much for supporting that need when it arises and is clearly justified.
Presumably this also means that, when we have people working in those maritime zones and they fall within Australian government jurisdiction, they will also fall within, and be covered by, Australia's industrial relations laws. That is, the workers—be they Australian workers or foreign workers under 457 visas or any other type of visa—will be entitled to fair work conditions, fair remuneration and fair work entitlements. Of course that is not something that coalition members ever speak about; and not once in this debate did I hear any of the members opposite speaking about fair work conditions, fair remuneration or fair entitlements. Yet we know from past experience that some of the worst cases of worker abuse and appalling work conditions have occurred on board foreign flagged vessels operating within Australian waters. We spoke about this at length when we passed laws relating to the maritime industry in this place a couple of years ago, laws which have improved those conditions immensely, but laws which previously allowed work conditions in those industries to occur, within Australian waters, on foreign flagged vessels that we would never, ever agree to for the mainland—laws which resulted in lives being lost and environmental disasters occurring not only in Australian waters but around the world. We know that there was no supervision, no accountability and no oversight of the conditions that those workers were made to work under or the work they were carrying out—whether it met or complied with any standards. The fact is there were no standards. This legislation is not only about supporting Australian jobs, something that we on this side of the House are very proud to stand up and do, but also about ensuring that—whether those jobs are for Australians or for foreign workers—we are also supporting fair work conditions.
Members opposite talk about economic development, and how this is going to stand in the way of economic development, but never once about how this might stand in the way of safety at work and all the other issues I have referred to. What they are clearly interested in is protecting the profits of multinationals, rather than the jobs of Australians or the working conditions of all who will ultimately work on these projects when work begins. If these projects do not go ahead, it is not because of the working conditions and fair rates of pay that perhaps the workers are going to be entitled to; it is simply because world commodity prices are not where they need to be in order to make the projects viable. It has nothing to do with working conditions. The working conditions simply allow workers to be exploited and more profits to go into the hands of those multinationals.
This legislation does complement other legislation that the minister introduced into the House recently, and quite rightly so. The legislation says that, if there are jobs to be created in Australia, then the first consideration for filling those jobs should go to Australians. Where that is not possible then of course we will look for foreign workers to come in and assist, because we do not want to hold back or stall projects. But where it is possible, Australian workers ought to be given the first right to work within those waters. It is also important to ensure that where work is carried out, it is carried out under the standards and conditions that we have in Australia, which we all know far exceed the standards that apply to many, many other countries.
This is good legislation, because it is responsible legislation protecting our nation's assets and the rights of working people around the world. I commend the legislation to the House.
No comments