Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 significantly extends the nonapplication of the Fair Work Act standards to workers on foreign ships working in Australian waters and significantly extends the application of Third World wage levels to the coastal trade, which has quite reasonably led to its being called, by the member for Blair and others, Work Choices on water. Eighty-eight per cent of the claimed deregulatory savings from this bill are from the replacement of Australian wage standards with Third World wage standards. Frankly, and as the member for Blair eloquently pointed out, this is outrageous.

For the past 30 years Australia has been undergoing an experiment. We have not been alone. Quite a few other countries have travelled the same path: free-market liberalism. Its hallmarks have been globalisation, privatisation, the free movement of goods, the free movement of people and deregulation. Its advocates said it would strengthen the Australian economy and make us more resilient to external shocks. But, far from making our economy more diverse and resilient, it has become narrow and vulnerable. We have much higher levels of unemployment than we did 30 years ago. We have much higher levels of youth unemployment, much worse long-term unemployment and serious problems of underemployment, but the people who have dug us into this hole are unrepentant. They want us to keep digging. They talk about the need for economic reform, which is code for more privatisation, more deregulation and even freer movement of goods and people. They talk about leadership, which is code for demanding that politicians do what they want rather than what the voters want. This is a battle which is being fought on many fronts, and this legislation represents just such a front.

Research has indicated that relaxation of shipping regulations would see fewer than 100 seafarers remain in employment out of a current workforce of 1,177. That is according to the Australia Institute. That would be a loss of 93 per cent of the current workforce. This would result in the likely loss of these skills from the country altogether in the longer term. Cruise ship work would go from 40 per cent Australian to 100 per cent foreign, and all movements of iron ore, bauxite, petrol and crude oil between domestic ports would be undertaken by foreign crews. This dire forecast was made as a major Bass Strait freight company, SeaRoad, warned that it would reconsider a $100 million investment in two new cargo vessels if the government pushed ahead with this amendment that would dump rules that force foreign vessels to pay their crew Australian wages while working domestic routes.

The government's official modelling does not take into account the cost of lost Australian jobs, the lost local spending and local tax and higher welfare spending resulting from this package. The Australia Institute's submission to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into the amendment found 'technical shortcomings' with the cost-benefit analysis:

cost-benefit analysis. The submission continues:

The Director of Research at the Australia Institute, Rod Campbell, said:

… the proposed Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is likely to reduce employment for relatively little economic benefit.

He said:

The Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) and Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of the Bill largely ignore the challenging economic reality faced by Australian coastal shipping.

Foreign flagged and crewed ships already have considerable access to the Australian coastal shipping market, making Australian coastal shipping possibly the only service sector facing competition that can use foreign labour while actually operating in Australia. By contrast, it is impossible for foreign trucking companies, rail companies or any other service provider to operate in Australia using international labour, paid at international rates. As crewing costs make up between 36 per cent and 42 per cent of ship operating costs, this puts Australian crews at a 15 to 20 per cent disadvantage against international ships in terms of operating costs.

The economic reality of Australia's coastal shipping industry is that it must compete with both heavily subsidised land freight options and international shipping that can use foreign labour while in Australian waters. The free market ideology behind this bill simply ignores that reality. Rod Campbell said:

If an Australian coastal shipping industry is to survive, it needs policy support as is found in many other countries.

The report concluded:

… the proposed Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 is likely to reduce employment for relatively little economic benefit. What little benefit that is generated will accrue largely to foreign owned shipping and bulk freight using companies. Rather than increasing access for foreign-crewed ships, coastal shipping would benefit from a policy approach that sought to level the playing field for Australian-crewed ships.

With the size of the domestic shipping fleet declining to just 49, the government wants to drive down the price of freight between Australian ports by opening up the sector to more foreign competition. In the cruise ship sector it has been revealed that senior government officials advised North Star Cruises to lay off its local workers and employ cheaper foreign labour to remain competitive and to take its ship, True North, off the Australian shipping register and re-register under a foreign flag. This is outrageous. Whose side is this government on? Team Australia? I don't think so!

Under the proposed changes, two senior Australian crew members would still be required for a foreign boat to operate in Australia. North Star Cruises has a rotating crew of 40, meaning the overhaul could place the jobs of 38 people in jeopardy. The company representative, Bill Milby, said there were at least another 12 coastal passenger operations in the area that would be negatively affected by the changes.

We already have a situation where temporary licences are dominating the coastal shipping sector. The foreign seafarers who are currently working on the temporary licences do not pay income tax in Australia, nor do they pay income tax in their home countries. This is an element of the unfair operating cost advantages that the foreign flagged, temporary licence ships have over the Australian flagged general licence ships. As the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers says:

If the Australian Parliament cannot legislate to exempt Australian seafarers from income tax, then it should not allow tax exempt foreign seafarers to operate foreign ships in the Australian coastal shipping sector.

The impact of the proposed amendment would be adverse for the few remaining Australian companies engaged in this shipping sector and adverse for the employment opportunities of Australian marine engineer officers, deck officers and other Australian seafarers.

The most significant consequence of this bill is to remove any priority of Australian flagged ship operators over foreign flagged ship operators. Passage of the bill would eliminate the remaining shreds of legislative and regulatory support for the Australian flagged coastal shipping industry. Passage of this bill would mean that Australia would knowingly concede a large degree of sovereign control over vessels which are routinely operating in Australian waters. This is because, in international maritime law, the flag of the ship determines the law applying to the ship.

This is a move that would effectively green-light tax avoidance as the basis for low-cost shipping transport services around the Australian coast. If this parliament were to endorse this current bill, it would be endorsing tax avoidance by foreign ship operators in the name of providing cheaper freight services within Australia. Everyone likes a bargain, but we have been campaigning in international meetings for the reduction and elimination of tax avoidance by corporations. We would have greatly reduced credibility on this issue if we were to open the Australian domestic transport sector to international tax avoiders.

Australia does not allow domestic planes, trains, trucks and buses to be operated on the following terms: overseas vessel registration permitted; foreign personnel as operators working on foreign rates of pay and conditions; no corporate income tax payable in Australia; no personal income tax payable by the crew members; no superannuation payable to these personnel; Australian occupational licensing of these personnel not required; Australian national security checks not required for the personnel; and Australian health and safety laws not applicable. Given that, Australia should not allow ships in the domestic transport sector to operate on these terms either. Australian cargo operators will inevitably switch to the cheaper, tax-free services provided by the flag-of-convenience foreign ship ultimately owned by a company or other entity registered in a tax haven.

Australia is an island nation dependent on shipping for 99 per cent of its trade. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have the fifth-largest shipping task of any nation. Ten percent of the world's trade by weight is carried by ship to or from Australia. Comparable nations all strongly regulate their coastal shipping for national interest reasons—that is, domestic shipping or shipping from one port to another within their borders. This includes the United States, which, via the Jones Act, bans foreign ships and crews from its coastal trade. Canada, Japan and the nations of the European Union do similarly. Australia, in fact, already has a coastal trading policy that allows participation of foreign ships where an Australian ship is not available.

This is a bill which removes revitalising Australian shipping from the objects of Australian coastal shipping. It replaces preference for an Australian flag on ships working the Australian coast with indifference to flagging, with so-called flag-of-convenience ships placed on the same level as those with the Australian flag. When a ship has an Australian flag, it is subject to Australian standards of safety, environmental compliance, taxation and industrial relations both here and on the open sea and it employs Australians. As has been said by others, this bill implements Work Choices on water, with 88 per cent of the government's estimated savings from this bill due to the sacking of Australian workers and their replacement with 90 per cent foreign crew paid Third World wage rates.

Our shipping industry, employing 10,000 Australian workers in direct and indirect roles, is an industry in itself. It deserves a regulatory regime that allows it to operate on a level playing field. That is what happens in every other industry, including in the road, rail and air freight sectors. Labor's position is simple. If you seek to move freight by road in this nation, the truck driver is paid Australian-level wages and operates under Australian workplace health and safety rules. If you seek to move freight by rail, the train driver is paid and required to operate in accordance with Australian law. The situation should be no different on what is referred to as the blue highway. If you work in Australia, you should be paid in accordance with Australian conditions and legal requirements.

The national interest in having an Australian shipping industry is based on three things. Firstly, there is the economic interest. We rely on shipping for 99 per cent of our trade, including an increasing amount of our petroleum supply. We cannot afford interruptions to this trade occasioned by reliance on foreign shipping. We need a maritime sector that calls Australia home. Secondly, there is the environmental interest. Shipping in Australian waters should maintain high environmental standards, especially in heavily used areas like the Great Barrier Reef. Recent incidents such as the Shen Neng, which occurred in 2010 on the Great Barrier Reef, the Pacific Adventurer in 2009 off the Sunshine Coast and the China Steel Developer this year off Mackay underscore the risk to our natural assets. It is highly preferable for local crews with local knowledge of shipping channels and not subject to fatigue or working under poorer work standards to be at the helm of ships working around our coast. Thirdly, there is the security interest. We know that screening of foreign crews is harder than screening of Australian crews. The Office of Transport Security acknowledges this, but a higher risk profile is not factored into the costs of this package. Our Navy benefits from the skills and support provided by the existence of an Australian merchant fleet.

As an island nation, we have a greater interest in a viable local maritime sector than most other nations. The impact of this bill would be adverse for the few remaining Australian companies engaged in the shipping sector. Less frequent reporting requirements would reduce the transparency of the sector and provide parliament with diminished insight into an industry which is generally out of sight and out of mind.

This bill should be rejected and new legislation should be drafted to require all commercial vessels consistently operating in Australian waters to be registered in Australia and to comply with all Australian laws. The fact that this bill deregulates Australian domestic shipping, removing preference for Australian flagged and crewed ships operating around the Australian coast, is regrettable. I believe that it should be amended in the way proposed by the opposition.

See this speech in context