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

It is a sign of our times that security looms large on the agenda of governments around the world. Increased terrorist activity requires increased vigilance. It demands that we take no chances. That is why, right around the world, governments have focused over the last 15 years on tightening security provisions of parliaments, government offices, places where people congregate and, of course, our ports and airports. It is a real balancing act. On the one hand, we need to make sure that we protect ourselves from those who would seek to do us harm. On the other, we need to make sure our security arrangements do not curtail our normal activities or place unnecessary burdens on the commercial activities that drive economic growth.

It is that balancing act that sits at the heart of the piece of legislation before us today. It seeks to exclude Australian flagged vessels involved in interstate trade from the regulatory regime with regard to security. Under current circumstances, all Australian vessels of 500 gross tonnes or more or those carrying 13 or more passengers on international and interstate vessels must have a ship security plan. That plan must include a security assessment of the vessel's operations that provides information on the security measures the ship has put in place to prevent unlawful interference. It must also include details of the actions that will be taken in the event of a security incident. These provisions do not apply to vessels that move goods within an Australian state, say, on a voyage from Brisbane to Townsville. The government argues that there is no increased security risk simply because a vessel crosses state borders. It also advises that removing these security obligations from vessels engaged in interstate trade will save the shipping industry up to $1 million a year.

The opposition will support this bill. We agree that, while it is critical that we take all steps we can to keep our nation safe, this provision can be dispensed with without any substantial effect on security. We also agree with the government's intention to continue to require that vessels that carry passengers or vehicles interstate should continue to be subject to the existing security regime. That is a common-sense provision. I note that the minister has said that the government proposes to amend the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Regulations to this end, and we will support those changes.

This legislation relates in particular to Australian flagged vessels, not those from overseas. As much as I am pleased to support the changes to exclude Australian flagged vessels from the security regulations, I note that this change is likely to be rendered irrelevant before very long. That is because this government is trying to remove Australian flagged vessels from our interstate trade. That will be the result of the legislation that is before the Senate—that is, the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill. I note that the member for Lyons just defended that legislation that is currently before the Senate. But the fact is that the explanatory memorandum, there in black and white in the legislation that he voted for, says that four of the six vessels currently operating from Tasmania will reflag. That is, they will take the Australian flag off the back of their ships and put on a foreign flag or get a new ship altogether and employ foreign workers being paid foreign wages. That is what the legislation itself says.

The fact is that if you remove any preference and remove all cabotage effectively from the Australian shipping industry then, if you have two ships side by side, one of them Australian flagged and paying Australian wages and the other foreign flagged with foreign conditions and paying foreign wages, the Australian industry simply will not be able to compete. That is just like if on the Hume Highway we allowed trucks to be Filipino registered with Filipino conditions and standards and with Filipino workers driving those tracks being paid Filipino wages then Linfox, Toll and the Australian trucking industry would not be able to compete with them either. This, like a lot of matters that come before the parliament, is not a complex issue. The legislation itself says that this will occur. No other G20 nation—not one—has this type of arrangement for coastal trade. That is why I have characterised this legislation, quite rightly, as unilateral economic disarmament.

The United States, for example, the bastion of the free market, requires that all coastal trade be undertaken by US seafarers on US flagged vessels that have been built in the United States. That is the position it takes. Yet, here in Australia, the intent of this bill is very clearly laid out in the explanatory memorandum, where 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).

This is not a position paper or a critique of the legislation by the Maritime Union of Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald or The Guardian website; this is in the legislation itself. The regulatory impact statement which is part of the legislation says:

… Australian reliance on foreign shipping services is likely to grow in the coming years as ships continue to leave the Australian fleet due to retirement or reflagging overseas to more favourable taxation and employment environments.

It goes on:

Should a less regulated coastal shipping regulatory system be implemented, it is likely that some operators of Australian ships will seek to move to the lower cost model and flag their ships overseas. This will allow operators to pay all workers on the now foreign flagged ships internationally competitive wages and conditions.

It is right there. I refer the member for Lyons to the regulatory impact statement—noting, again, that it is not a statement by the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, crossbench senators or the Maritime Union of Australia—which says, regarding non-bulk trade across Bass Strait:

We assume four vessels will register under a foreign register to reduce operating costs.

That is, the Australian flag will be gone and foreign workers will be paid foreign wages. That is what it says. It also says that 88 per cent—88c in every dollar—of the claimed economic benefits for business will be from savings in labour costs through replacing Australian jobs with foreign jobs.

If the salmon industry in Tasmania were allowed to establish a facility next to the very successful industries in Tasmania—

See this speech in context