Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

First, I want to quote from the government official modelling, the cost-benefit analysis, in the explanatory memorandum at page 156. This applies to the preferred option 6. It says:

Many of the operators currently operating under the Australian General Register would likely re-flag their vessels in order to compete with the foreign operators who enjoy the benefit of comparatively lower wage rates. Australian seafarer jobs would be adversely affected as Australian operators re-flag from the Australian General Register.Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers (paid under EA rates) with foreign seafarers (paid under ITF rates).

I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that there was some considerable debate, including in the Senate legislation committee, about the implications of this legislation. In another contribution, I will go to the evidence of Mr Bill Milby and others, which was presented to that committee. Here we have evidence—not from someone else but from the government's own cost-benefit analysis in the explanatory memorandum—making it clear, and I quote again for the benefit of the minister, that operators:

… would likely re-flag their vessels in order to compete with the foreign operators who enjoy the benefit of comparatively lower wage rates.

I say to the minister that there in black and white are the implications of this legislation before this parliament for Australian jobs. It is beyond comprehension that a minister would bring this legislation to this House when it is so clear what the implications are. So I ask the minister: does he agree with this official government analysis in the explanatory memorandum, which says that if this legislation is carried:

Ship operators are likely to replace Australian seafarers (paid under EA rates) with foreign seafarers (paid under ITF rates).

See this speech in context