Jim Lloyd (Robertson, Liberal Party, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 makes a number of small but in some cases quite significant changes to four acts, particularly to the Navigation Act. While I do not intend to mention all the amendments contained in this bill, I will make specific reference to a few of them.

A review of the level of penalties imposed by the Lighthouses Act and the Navigation Act has shown that many of the penalties contained in those acts have little or no deterrent effect, as they have not been revised for a considerable period of time. The bill will increase penalties to a more appropriate level.

For example, the current maximum penalty in the Lighthouses Act for damaging a marine navigational aid is only $220. As someone who holds a master class 4, I understand that it is a very severe event and a $220 penalty is really quite ridiculous. The consequences of such damage may be an accident, such as the grounding of a ship which is relying on that aid for its navigation. This in turn may result in major environmental damage and possible loss of life. The bill will provide for a more appropriate and graduated series of offences for damaging a marine navigational aid. If the damage is the result of deliberate conduct, the maximum penalty will be imprisonment for ten years; if the damage is the result of reckless conduct, the maximum penalty will be imprisonment for seven years; if the damage is the result of negligent conduct, the maximum penalty will be a fine of $22,000. A similar approach of providing a graduated series of penalties for each particular offence has been adopted throughout the bill.

Military forces around the world now routinely operate some ships on a charter basis rather than owning the ships. Such ships are not operated any differently to ships that belong to the military forces. An example is the Incat-owned vessel, HMAS Jervis Bay, which was chartered by the Royal Australian Navy and used to ferry people and goods between Australia and East Timor during the East Timor crisis.

Military ships traditionally are not subject to the laws applying to merchant ships. This is recognised in the Navigation Act, which exempts ships belonging to the Defence Force of Australia or to foreign military forces from its application. To recognise modern chartering arrangements, the bill will extend the exemption provision to apply not only to ships belonging to military forces but also to ships operated by military forces.

Ship pilots provide a very important function in advising on the navigation of ships in areas where navigation is hazardous. The bill contains a number of amendments relating to pilotage.

Section 186D of the Navigation Act currently provides for the making of regulations relating to pilotage. That regulation-making power is being extended to pilotage providers—that is, the persons or organisations who assign a pilot to a ship. The sorts of matters that may be covered by regulations include the duties of pilotage providers.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act has requirements for compulsory pilotage in northern areas of the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. There are no requirements for compulsory pilotage in the Navigation Act. The regulation-making power in section 186D is to be further extended to allow regulations to be made declaring areas where pilotage is compulsory.

The master of a ship remains responsible for the ship at all times, even while a pilot is on board or the ship is subject to vessel traffic management arrangements, such as vessel traffic control within a port or other directions from another person not on board the ship.

Amendments to section 410B of the Navigation Act are intended to remove any doubt that, where a ship is subject to compulsory pilotage under an Australian law, the owner and master of the ship are responsible for any loss or damage caused by the ship. The pilot and the pilotage provider are immune from any civil claims for loss or damages that may arise.

This amendment will not mean that pilots will not take due care while they are working as pilots. The amendments do not provide any immunity from prosecution under criminal law. Further, in order to perform the duties of a coastal pilot, a person must be licensed by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. A pilot’s licence may be cancelled, suspended or restricted in a number of circumstances, including if a pilot has demonstrated incompetence or misconduct relating to the performance of his or her duties as a pilot. A pilot who does not perform his or her duties in a competent manner therefore places his or her means of livelihood at risk.

As well as clarifying the immunity for pilots, the bill inserts a new section 411 into the Navigation Act to specifically provide that the master of a ship is not relieved from responsibility for the conduct and navigation of a ship by reason only of the ship being subject to vessel traffic management arrangements.

Where certain conditions are met, an unlicensed ship may be granted a continuing voyage permit to engage in trade between Australian ports. Subsection 286(4) of the Navigation Act provides that such a permit may be cancelled by the minister, but the minister must have given the master, owner or agent of the ship at least six months notice of his or her intention to cancel the permit.

This provision is being amended to allow a continuing voyage permit to be cancelled in a much shorter time period if the minister considers that such cancellation is in the public interest. The permit holder will be given an opportunity to show cause why the permit should not be cancelled and will be able to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the review of a decision to cancel a permit.

While abuse of alcohol or other drugs on ships is not a significant problem, it is important that there be provision to detect any such abuse, as even one crew member of a ship being unable to perform his or her duties may have catastrophic results. The Navigation Act already provides for breath testing to determine blood alcohol content but, because of inconsistency in the use of terms within the act, the necessary associated regulations to determine precisely how breath testing is to occur have not been able to be made. This bill will ensure that terminology is consistent.

The Navigation Act is also being amended to allow for the taking of mouth swabs to enable testing for the presence of drugs.

The last amendment which I will mention is an amendment to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act, which will require Australian chemical tankers to prepare and carry a marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances. Carriage of such a plan on board a chemical tanker will provide a ready reference for the crew in case of a pollution incident involving hazardous liquids.

The requirement to carry a marine pollution emergency plan for noxious liquid substances is in accordance with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Ships are already required to carry similar plans setting out procedures in cases of pollution by oil and the management of shipboard waste.

This bill continues the government’s efforts to enhance Australia’s shipping safety and pollution prevention regimes. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 makes a significant number of unrelated amendments to four maritime acts. Labor generally welcomes these amendments. Consistent with the Howard government’s approach to Australia’s maritime sector, they do not represent any great embrace of good policy; they do, however, introduce some improvements, particularly with respect to safety and environmental safeguards. For that reason Labor will support the amendments.

The bill amends the Lighthouses Act 1911 to provide for the maintenance of marine navigational aids and higher penalties for damaging aids or failing to report such damage. The bill also makes some amendments to the Navigation Act 1912, which is the principal Commonwealth act relating to the safety of ships. These amendments include revised pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified by regulation; revised provisions relating to the reporting of ship movements; revised provisions relating to alcohol and other drugs and allowing for the taking of mouth swabs to test for alcohol and other drugs; provision of immunity from civil claims for pilots and pilotage providers; abolition of the requirement for six months notice before the minister can cancel a continuing voyage permit; and increased penalties for major offences that pose a threat to life or the environment.

The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. This act implements the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. The bill amends the act to require Australian chemical tankers to prepare and carry a noxious liquid substances plan; provide that security paid by the owner or master in the event of a pollution breach must cover the maximum amount of penalties that may be payable by all members of the crew; and clarify that documents that may be served on a ship’s agent include documents that may be served on the owner, the master or any member of the crew.

The Shipping Registration Act facilitates the registration of ships in Australia, grants ships Australian nationality and provides for the registration of mortgages over ships. The bill amends the act to provide that mortgages can be removed from the register at the request of the mortgagee; allow the minister to delegate his or her powers under the act to a staff member of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority; and provide for access to the Australian Register of Ships by electronic means.

That is what the bill will do. Let me now turn to what the bill fails to do, particularly with respect to coastal shipping—a matter raised by the shadow minister for transport, Senator Kerry O’Brien, during debate on this bill in the other place.

Section 286 of the Navigation Act provides that the minister for transport may issue a single-voyage permit or a continuing voyage permit to an unlicensed ship to engage in trade between Australian ports. The minister may do so only if there is no licensed ship available or the service provided by a licensed ship would be inadequate, and the minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. As already noted, this bill amends the act to remove the requirement for the minister to give six months notice of the intention to cancel a continuing voyage permit.

On 18 July last year the Australian revealed details of an internal audit of the Howard government’s administration of coastal shipping under the Navigation Act. It was obtained under freedom of information provisions and I am sure that it is no surprise that the government failed to release the report of its own initiative. The only way it could be obtained was under freedom of information provisions.

A compliance review of coastal shipping permits was conducted by KPMG for the Department of Transport and Regional Services and completed in October 2004. There has been ample time for the government to tell the public, certainly the maritime public, of the report and its outcomes. The minister knows, even if he fails to admit it, that the review delivered a damning assessment of the Howard government’s performance. The government may well be celebrating 10 years in office, but it has been 10 years wasted in many areas. The review found that the administration of coastal shipping licences and permits for foreign vessels under this government is a shambles. The audit revealed that one in six coastal shipping permits are granted without a signed application form, which, according to KPMG, means:

... the department risks granting a permit based on a bogus or unauthorised application.

Given the climate of national security and fear, everyone would understand that this would be something that the government would not want to overlook. The audit also revealed that inadequate financial controls mean that the government may be unaware of fraud, errors or other irregularities related to licence and permit applications—again just a lack of accountability or transparency or a government that just does not care. The audit report also revealed that poor record keeping means that data relating to more than one in five approved licence and permit applications is ‘absent or incorrect’ and that existing regulations are, in KPMG’s words, ‘out of date’ and ‘do not reflect current operating procedures’.

It is quite a damning report card, an indictment on this government’s lack of action in this area. If that were not enough, it found that the minister’s department had breached the Navigation (Coasting Trade) Regulations Act 1937 and ministerial guidelines on the regulation of coastal shipping by failing to establish whether a licensed ship is available before issuing a permit.

Single and continuous voyage permits are only supposed to be issued when a licensed ship is unavailable and the minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. It should not be forgotten that different rules apply to unlicensed foreign ships granted single or continuous voyage permits. They are not required to pay their crews Australian wages when trading on the Australian coast. We have seen reports in the past on that. I am particularly referring to the ships of shame and other problems related to the maritime industry generally. These ships, many of them flag of convenience vessels, can undercut Australian wages and conditions when plying their trade on the Australian coast.

The simple truth is that the Howard government has presided over the near destruction of Australia’s coastal trading fleet while giving a leg up to foreign shippers that, in many cases, use substandard vessels and engage cheap foreign labour at the expense of Australian jobs. The minister has said that the government has addressed deficiencies identified in the audit report. It did take the release of the report under the freedom of information request for the minister to actually acknowledge the shambolic state of coastal shipping administration.

The minister’s department has told the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that the recommendations in the report will be addressed through amendments to the coasting trading regulations. We have not seen those rewritten regulations yet, so we will all be waiting for the minister to act on his promise. I invite the minister to tell us where he is up to and what stage we are at in the process of that taking place.

Labor is also concerned, however, that the changes will have little relationship to the recommendations in the review. At the AusIntermodal 2005 conference in Sydney last year the minister said that there was too much regulation of coastal shipping—obviously, not too much in the sense that it is being done properly. It appears that the minister’s answer is the dilution of the few rules that regulate coastal trading activity. As Senator O’Brien, the shadow minister, has observed, the minister knows he does not have the capacity to enforce coastal trading rules, so he is thinking about getting rid of them altogether.

It is important to understand why the government’s failure to properly administer the cabotage system matters and should matter. First, the lax administration of coastal trading places Australia at a heightened risk of maritime terrorism. The Howard government has been issuing permits in response to unsigned applications. This is not a light point; this is something very serious and something that the government should take note of. That is, the government has risked granting permits based on bogus or unauthorised applications. If you work that through the fear is that, if somebody wanted to perpetrate some act on our nation, this would be a perfect mechanism to carry that out.

It is no secret that the international shipping industry has a dark side to it. During the course of its inquiry into the introduction of a maritime security identification card the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee received evidence that:

International Maritime Security agencies accept that Osama Bin Laden owns a fleet of cargo ships all flagged under the “Flag of convenience” system. This system evades taxes, and most other regulated cost but more importantly provides the beneficial owner with the most effective veil of anonymity available in international trade.

There is no more effective veil of anonymity than a blank application form. In Labor’s view, there can be no more effective way to make Australia more vulnerable to terrorist attack than by permitting foreign ships to sail from port to port without even causing them the inconvenience of lodging a signed permit form. Foreign ships authorised to trade on our coast by this government carry oil, chemicals, LPG and other dangerous goods including ammonium nitrate—all chemicals of concern to Australia’s security.

The Australian maritime transport compendium commissioned by the Australian Shipowners Association and published in 2005 tells a telling statistical tale about the growing use of foreign ships to transport goods around Australian ports. It reveals that, since 1991-92, the number of permits issued to foreign ships has grown by over 325 per cent. In 2003-04, foreign vessels were permitted to carry 27.5 per cent of the Australian interstate and intrastate sea freight trade, up from eight per cent when Labor last held office.

As noted, foreign seafarers are not subject to the same rules that apply to Australian seafarers serving on Australian ships. Not only are foreign seafarers denied Australian pay and conditions but they are not subject to the same security regime as Australian seafarers. This is not just a case about pay and conditions, important as that is—and very much so—but, also very importantly, about international and Australian security. The much-delayed implementation of the maritime security identification card regime does not impose additional requirements on foreign seafarers. Australian truck drivers delivering goods to our ports are going to be subject to more stringent background and identity checking than foreign seafarers sailing from port to port. Imagine the duplicity in that system.

Labor says that the carriage of high-consequence dangerous goods like ammonium nitrate by foreign ships must stop now if Australia is serious about minimising the threat of terrorism. We often hear the government speak of this, its so-called mantra on these issues—some sort of ownership over terrorism issues. Where are the practical acts in very simple bits of legislation that could actually deal with some of these very real threats to Australia?

The Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, can claim much of the credit for raising public awareness about this issue, but the government is not paying much attention. It is clear to just about everyone except those opposite that the safest way to transport high-consequence dangerous goods around Australia is on Australian ships crewed by Australian men and women subject to appropriate security screening—people who are paid appropriately, have the appropriate conditions and will do the job in a safe and secure way.

Secure ships and secure seafarers mean better protection for the Australian community, our ports and our infrastructure. This is not just about keeping dangerous substances out of the hands of terrorists and supporting Australian shippers and maritime workers. It is clear that the increasing carriage of sea freight around our coast by foreign ships—many of them, as we know, flag of convenience vessels subject to minimal regulation—also puts our natural environment at risk. It is a matter of good luck, not good governance, that Australia has not seen a major environmental disaster associated with the carriage of chemical or petroleum products by a ‘ship of shame’.

The Howard government’s neglect of shipping policy threatens our economy, our national security and our natural environment. It is time that the Howard government ceased abusing the cabotage system. It should be enforcing the rules, not just talking about walking away from them altogether.

There are other things the government should also be doing to secure our maritime borders. A critical issue is the enforcement of crew and manifest advance reporting. The government has a 48-hour rule in place but does not adequately enforce it. It is past time that it did so and took seriously its own regulations, its own legislation.

Labor supports this bill, but it does not support the Howard government’s failed administration of maritime policy. I now move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemn the Government for:

(a)

failing to uphold Australia’s national interest by adopting anti-Australian shipping policies that favour foreign vessels and crew despite the risk to national security, Australian jobs and the natural environment;

(b)

failing to ensure adequate security in relation to the shipping of dangerous goods and hazardous material, including explosives precursors such as ammonium nitrate; and

(c)

failing to ensure ships comply with the requirement to provide details of crew and cargo forty-eight hours before arrival.”

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Oxley has moved as amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, which amends four acts. It amends the Lighthouses Act 1911, the Navigation Act 1912, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Shipping Registration Act 1981. The government has an ongoing and very vital role in the administration of our marine environment, whether it be simply the safe passage of ships or something else. In a variety of ways we seek to preserve and conserve our marine environment; we seek to preserve and conserve our marine species; and we seek to regulate the pollution of the sea, not only by ships but also by man, by land based industries. We have a range of measures which we undertake to protect our marine environment. The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 is just one part of the broad range of measures for which the government has a responsibility—to ensure that we are up to date; we are reforming where reform is necessary and appropriate; we are where we are required to be; and, where prudence would dictate, we are always innovative in the way we set about making our response.

In this particular piece of legislation the priority in the changes is to make our shipping system safer, for crews as well as for the environment. And we do not have to limit it there. There are people who are engaged in maritime rescues—whose responsibility is maritime rescues—for whom life would also be safer if the systems of policing safety in our sea lanes were maintained in an up-to-date fashion and if every piece of effective technology and innovation in law can be used to make our monitoring systems, our reportage systems and our systems of preparedness far more effective.

Changes are wanted by industry and by shipping stakeholders, to address outdated safety and environmental protection legislation that currently stands. Amending the four acts will strengthen shipping safety and maritime environmental protection. It will also update the penalties for offences. In every walk of life there are laws that need to be followed. In this area, over the years, there has been a sorry record of abuse, where out of sight is out of mind, in the view of many shipping operators. The examples of pollution of the sea by ships read like a litany of disasters over the years. The changes and the new insistence, by governments worldwide, on stronger protection measures are welcomed.

The member for Oxley made a whole series of comments. He harped on about issues such as safety, security and the environment, but it all came back to one factor: the intention of the Labor Party to protect elements of the shipping industry that are the preserve of the Labor Party’s union bosses and their power. We saw that in relation to the waterfront dispute and the efforts by the government to introduce a far more effective waterfront regime.

It is no wonder that shipping in Australia was flatlining under the Labor Party. You could not resuscitate the Australian shipping industry with a Packer whacker under Labor. It was about as dead as it could possibly get. The government’s changes in relation to waterfront reform, in particular—being the initial response of the government—introduced new opportunities for Australians to be involved in the shipping industry far more effectively, competitively and efficiently—not only allowing Australian industry to be involved in shipping but allowing Australian industry to benefit through shipping.

Every cent that was being wasted on featherbedded union conditions on the waterfront was a cent that was lost to productive capacity for Australia, for a competitive stance for Australia. It is an absolute travesty that for many years the Labor Party refused to act on the waterfront. It claimed that it was impossible to gain efficiencies on the waterfront and that the repeated calls from all sectors of Australian industry for an improved and more efficient waterfront just could not be delivered.

We saw a series of measures by the Labor Party—inquiries and pseudo reforms that did nothing more than simply rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanicgive a new sinecure to another group of overpaid people already sucking the lifeblood out of the waterfront of Australia. We are now in a position where, thanks to the courageous reforms undertaken by former minister Peter Reith and supported wholeheartedly by members of the government, the container rates on the waterfronts around Australia have ratcheted up dramatically. There is a new sense of optimism that our shipping capabilities are world class. Our ability to process cargoes through the wharves is up to scratch with anything existing in the world—in fact, we can beat that. The apathy of Labor members when confronted with the power of their union mates over the waterfront was an absolute national shame and a disgrace. They did not put the nation first. They put first the dodgy claims of people who really were just trying to maintain a sinecure against the great weight of the whole of the Australian national interest at that time.

We now see the rhetoric in relation to this bill from the member for Oxley. He progresses on and says, ‘We expect the same sorts of sinecures to be extended to our union mates in relation to shipping.’ I said earlier that the reforms we made on the waterfront invigorated Australian industry and opened up new possibilities in the minds of Australian industry for the development of shipping. I think we have seen that. We have seen advances being made in Australian shipping companies. Patrick, Toll Holdings and those sorts of companies have made great strides in recent times—and we have seen only the very start of it. Over time the new understanding that we as a nation can process cargo efficiently—and the opportunities that flow from that—is starting to make its way into the broader community. An awareness of that connectivity is something that has only just begun to dawn on many in Australian industries, because for many years we were so moribund, so completely dead in the water in every respect—Australia, a land girt by sea, girt by union domination and girt by cosy union mates who insist on sucking the lifeblood out of our shipping industry.

Now the member for Oxley and his mates want to extend that in relation to on board ship. It is necessary for us to provide increased flexibility for Australian producers and to ensure that there is security—and that is what this legislation is all about. To say that every time there is a ship load of ammonium nitrate—a fertiliser that Australian farmers require; they continue to need to use it, despite the problems caused by it being able to be used as an explosive—special vessels need to be manned by ALP union mates to ply the seas of Australia is a ridiculous incursion into what is an important piece of the lifeblood of a large part of Australian industry: the ready availability of effective fertiliser for cropping.

The fact is that we are seeing alternatives to ammonium nitrate. As time goes by, we will see a trend to those more effective and safer types of fertiliser on Australian farms. Therefore, this question of an ALP fleet of union buddies plying the seas and carrying ammonium nitrate can remain where it is—a fantasy in the minds of the members opposite.

In this legislation we also look at the question of lighthouses. Lighthouses are the traffic lights of the sea: they identify the lanes on which vessels travel. It is important that we continue to provide more and more innovative forms of navigation. The lighthouses, despite the innovations of GPS, omega navigation and various other forms of very accurate satellite guided systems, remain a very important part of the network. We need to protect against consequential loss of and damage to life and property, the economic impact and the environmental impact of ships running aground. Even if they do not split apart and spill their cargoes, there can still be horrendous damage caused by ships running aground.

I recall a vessel running aground on the reef north of Cairns some time ago. It cut a huge swathe through the coral. Even though the vessel remained intact and was able to be taken off the reef and continue on its way, the damage to the coral was quite significant. A huge area was flattened and destroyed. We have to bear in mind that protection of the Great Barrier Reef is an important necessity for us in Queensland, to maintain our incredibly important tourism industry. We need to focus on the reef and we need to be able to provide support for it.

Around lighthouses, there is an increasing problem with trespassing and vandalism. We require greater deterrence. Improved penalties are needed; strengthened penalties are needed. You cannot have a situation where, because of vandalism and trespass in the lighthouse grounds, the functionality of the lighthouse is lost and ships are placed at risk. Penalties are currently quite low, particularly when the consequences are considered.

If you damage or disable a navigation aid, you place at risk the environment, property and lives. The change of penalty from $200 to 10 years imprisonment for intentionally engaging in conduct that destroys or damages a marine navigational aid is welcomed. That penalty is comparable with the penalty for intentionally damaging Commonwealth property under the Crimes Act. Damage to a lighthouse that could cause a cataclysm on the sea is quite obviously potentially a heck of a lot more damaging and more dangerous than damage to other Commonwealth property in many cases. Trespass is also made consistent under this legislation, with trespass on Commonwealth property made consistent in relation to the extent of the penalties that are applicable.

Under the Navigation Act we increase penalties for people falsely representing themselves as qualified or people who perform duties as a master, officer or seaman without the proper qualifications. In Queensland we know all about people presenting themselves without the correct qualifications. We have seen the consequences of that in the health system. We have seen people maimed and injured because the Queensland health system was unable to simply check a website and determine whether someone was or was not properly qualified.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Blair what connection the health—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member has a question for you. Are you willing to take the question?

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the member for Blair what connection the Queensland health system has to the piece of legislation that we are debating today. If he could please make that connection, I would be most grateful.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was referring to the increased penalties under the Navigation Act as proposed under this legislation for people who falsely represent themselves as qualified. I was explaining quite clearly to the chamber the consequences of people misrepresenting themselves as being fully qualified and that this has caused an absolute disaster in the Queensland health system. If we have the same thing happening with the people driving our ships around the country then we have a serious problem.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that include using your personal staff for your own child-minding activities?

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The mischievous member over there is making allegations that he knows nothing about. A new section of the legislation creates an offence for both master and owner of a regulated ship that operates without a pilot in a compulsory pilotage area. Compulsory pilotage will only be imposed in areas that are hazardous to navigation. These areas are often of significant environmental value. Compulsory pilotage reduces the possibility of an accident but also aims to prevent pollution occurring in the case of an accident. The penalty for an offence under this section is set at the same level as offences under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The legislation also increases penalties to a level where they are an effective deterrent for failure to produce certificates or documents or failing to comply with the requirement of the Maritime Safety Authority to take a ship into dock. The legislation is aimed at decreasing the economic advantage in running a substandard or unseaworthy ship. Defects on these vessels—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, could I ask the member a question?

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly. I am popular!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the honourable member for Blair is: in the event that an accident were to occur because of the unsafe pilotage or navigation of a ship, is the Queensland health system sufficiently robust under the Beattie Labor government to handle any possible casualties from such an accident?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Fisher’s intervention is not acceptable to the chair.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is outside the gamut of this legislation. I do not believe that the member is qualified to answer that question.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: the honourable member was talking about maritime safety and I was talking about the impact of a lapse of maritime safety and casualties that could occur as a result. I wondered whether the Queensland health system had the wherewithal to manage those casualties. I would think there is a definite causal connection between the bill and my quite reasonable question.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to the point of order, once again I reiterate that this is outside the gamut of this legislation, and I do not believe that the member can be asked to answer that question.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand your point of order. The honourable member for Blair will come to the bill before the committee.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am out of time. (Time expired)

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the provisions of the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 and, in doing so, to reject out of hand the un-Australian remarks by the previous speaker, the member for Blair, in which he clearly indicated to the House, without reservation, that he would sooner have people sometimes operating on illegal visas and not paying taxes taking Australian jobs—remarks which, so far as I am concerned, would be unacceptable to the great majority of his constituents in Blair.

As has been said, this bill contains a number of technical amendments to a series of acts which go to the very heart of an important industry in Australia, the maritime industry. As we all know, Australia has a proud maritime history. Much of our contemporary history is based on the brave men and women who took to the seas and settled this island nation. In recent times we have also relied on seafarers in times of conflict. Unlike the member for Blair, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Australian merchant seafarers who have defended this nation. They were prepared to put their lives on the line for the safety and welfare of Australia. To have those people denigrated by the member for Blair is unacceptable to them, their families and their communities. We also recently commemorated victory in the Pacific, honouring the end of World War II. It is worth mentioning the contribution made by the merchant navy in that conflict.

Today, as a large isolated island nation, we also accept that Australia remains heavily reliant on the shipping industry, both domestically and internationally. In the middle of a resources boom, which is really driving the Australian economy, we need to stop to think just how dependent we are on the seafaring industry.

That takes me to the question of our living standards, which are continuing to improve. Disposable incomes grow and globalisation brings about global trading in more and more commodities, which is to the benefit of Australia. Effectively, that means that the worldwide freight task is growing at an almost exponential rate. Just think about the fact that 20 per cent of Australian exports are energy exports. When we consider the expected growth in the demand for energy of over 100 per cent worldwide between now and 2030, we can start to appreciate the importance of the shipping industry to Australia’s economic future.

In addition, we have to acknowledge that our domestic freight task is predicted to double over the next decade. The Australian shipping industry needs to be well placed to take some of that load up. There are obviously certain commodities which have to be moved by sea, for a range of reasons—such as safety, national security, amenity and transport efficiency. In addition, there are significant defence and national interest reasons for supporting the Australian shipping industry.

Unlike the Howard government, the opposition is proud to take the view that Australia can be both a nation of shippers and a shipping nation. We can actually do both, and it is about time we started to pull our weight on both fronts. As reflected in the second reading amendment moved by the member for Oxley, the opposition therefore condemns the government for its wholesale abuse of the single and continuous voyage permit provisions of the Navigation Act. We believe that this action has been deliberately designed to undermine Australian jobs and, in doing so, to undermine the viability of the Australian merchant fleet.

There is clear evidence of contrived unavailability of Australian ships, which has unfairly favoured foreign ships with foreign labour that is cheap. There are serious questions about visa entitlements and approval, and about working under substandard conditions of employment that are unacceptable in terms of international conventions with respect to the rights of seafarers. The outcome of this has been the loss of a maritime skills base in Australia; the opening up of the Australian coastline to potential environmental disaster; and ongoing, major security threats, which was also touched on by the member for Oxley, with express reference to the movement of ammonium nitrate.

Just as we do not support Third World wages or substandard working conditions in other industries—although there seems to be a view that that is what should occur in Australia, based on the comments of the member for Blair—we should not accept them, I believe, in the transport sector. We as a nation should not accept that practice in interstate shipping, the same way in which we should not accept it in the manufacturing industry, the resource sector, nursing, teaching or any other sector of employment in Australia.

We suggest that the threats posed by foreign shipping on the Australian coastline should not be underestimated, because they actively represent serious threats to our nation’s wellbeing, prosperity and security. They include defence, security, marine environment, the future of our tourism industry—a huge export earner and job engine in Australia—border protection and the all-important issue of how we train Australians in maritime skills.

The companies involved—and let us be square about this—and their workforces have no allegiance to Australia and its safety and security. They pay no taxes in this country and are effectively guest labour in the Australian transport system to the detriment of Australia’s welfare and to the detriment of future job opportunities for Australians.

Unlike the Howard government, the opposition went to the last election with a commitment to this very important industry because we thought it was not only about moving freight but also about our security and the international struggle against the threat of terrorism. The opposition has long held the view that domestic shipping can and should play its important role in the Australian transport industry. The opposition’s maritime policy reaffirmed our support for the domestic industry and the national interest benefits that accrue from having a viable industry using Australian ships with Australian crews working under Australian conditions.

Labor also recognises the value of the cabotage provisions of the Navigation Act and the need to restore these provisions to their original intent as temporary licences for ships to operate on the Australian coast when Australian shipping vessels are not available. Unfortunately, the government’s response to this crisis in the Australian shipping industry is to stick its head in the sand and tinker around the edges.

The provisions of this bill include, firstly, amendments to the Lighthouse Act 1911 to provide for the maintenance of marine navigational aids and higher penalties for damaging aids or failing to report such damage; and, secondly, a range of amendments to the Navigation Act, which is the principal Commonwealth act relating to the safety of ships. These include revising pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified by regulation, which is exceptionally important; revising provisions relating to the reporting of ship movements; revising provisions relating to alcohol and other drugs and allowing for the taking of mouth swabs to test for alcohol and other drugs; providing immunity from civil claims for pilots and pilotage providers; removing the requirement of six months notice before the minister can cancel a continuing voyage permit; and increasing penalties for other major offences that pose a threat to life or the environment.

They also include amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1981, which implements the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. These amendments require Australian chemical tankers to prepare and carry a noxious liquid substances plan—which is exceptionally important for a variety of reasons—and provide that security where paid by the owner or master in the event of a pollution breach must cover the maximum amount of penalties that may be payable by all members of the crew. Why should the Australian taxpayer bear that cost? The amendments also include clarifying that documents that may be served on the ship’s agent include documents—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was wondering if the honourable member opposite would take a question.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the honourable member for Batman take the intervention?

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question to the honourable member for Batman is: does he agree with many commentators who have said that unrealistic wages and conditions on Australian ships have priced the Australian coastal shipping trade out of viability? In other words, we do not have the coastal shipping trade we should because of unrealistic conditions won by unions in that area.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Poor old member for Fisher! No wonder he has never made it to the front bench to be a minister; it is reflected in the nature of his ignorant question. The issue of wages and conditions of Australian seafarers is not a barrier to the merchant services in Australia. They are highly efficient, which is really our competitive advantage internationally. It comes back to government policy. It is not a question of wages and conditions of employment; it is about what is right for Australia. We have a government that is prepared to not only export jobs but, in doing so, based on false suggestions of unfair wages and conditions of employment, also place Australia at serious risk in terms of the nature of the people on some of these foreign vessels. Some of the vessels have historically been ships of shame, which potentially endangers the Australian environment, especially the state of Queensland, where the member for Fisher comes from, with respect to the importance of the tourism industry. With issues such as ammonium nitrate, why would you have foreign crews not paying taxes and with serious questions about their visa entitlements on the Australian coastline at a time of major international threat from terrorist organisations? It comes back to good government policy. It is about time the member for Fisher fronted up to his national responsibilities and what is in Australia’s national interests, rather than playing petty politics, as reflected in the ignorance of his own party and the fact that they have no vision for the future of Australia.

In that context, this bill, importantly—and this is why we support aspects of this bill—clarifies that documents that may be served on a ship’s agent include documents that may be served on the owner, the master or any member of the crew. Amendments also go to the Shipping Registration Act to provide that mortgages can be removed from the register at the request of the mortgagee, allowing the minister to delegate his or her powers under the act to a staff member of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and provide for access to the Australian Register of Ships by electronic means. It is all about efficiency and control in terms of accountability of the Australian shipping industry, which is exceptionally important, and foreign vessels.

I also indicate to the House that there are a series of technical legislative amendments that do not recognise the value of the Australian industry and the need for a full-scale review of the current cabotage provisions, taking into account all relevant factors, not simply cost and the ideological obsession, as clearly represented by the member for Fisher’s question just a moment ago. It is for this reason that the opposition, while supporting the bill, has moved the second reading amendment standing in the name of the member for Oxley. As has been indicated, the second reading amendment goes to a number of important issues such as the wholesale destruction of the industry and the consequences for Australian jobs, skills, marine security et cetera.

In closing, I want to raise a couple of remarks about what I believe is an important recent breakthrough, which goes to the role of the International Labour Organisation. I would like to touch on one of the issues contained in the opposition’s second reading amendment—that of the carriage of high-consequence and dangerous goods on the Australian coastline, notably ammonium nitrate. It is well known that terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates have used ammonium nitrate as part of their deadly campaigns, which can be a major threat to Australia. On that note, we need only think of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, the Oklahoma bombing of 1995 and the attacks on embassies in the 1990s. These are serious threats and the Australian government should be vigilant about doing everything possible to remove any potential threat in the movement of ammonium nitrate.

I believe the government has made no attempt to restrict the carriage of these cargoes, despite all of its security rhetoric. On the contrary, since 1 July 2005, at least five single voyage permits have been issued for the carriage of ammonium nitrate between Australian ports. That represents 10,800 tonnes of this highly dangerous fertiliser carried under five permits. The opposition contend that the carriage of dangerous goods such as ammonium nitrate by foreign ships must stop now. We believe that the safest way to transport ammonium nitrate and other fertilisers around Australia that are vital to Australian rural industry is on Australian ships with Australian crews. When a secure ship with a secure crew sails out of a secure port into another port, the exposure of risk is minimised.

That also takes me to the issue of a new maritime convention. I draw to the attention of the House a maritime convention of 2006. In doing so, I call on the Australian government and all state and territory governments to, through a proper consultative process, including industry, urgently ratify this new convention. The convention, appropriately, includes a bill of rights for seafarers, which was adopted on 23 February this year by the International Labour Organisation with a vote of 314 in favour, none against and just four abstentions.

I also remind the House, as a former member of the ILO governing body, that this is not a workers’ parliament; this is an international organisation that has put a huge amount of effort, following consultations with industry over an extended period, into rationalising the existing conventions that have long existed with respect to the operation of the maritime industry. The ILO historically has always prided itself on a particular commitment to the maritime industry. The tripartite process with respect to the development of maritime conventions, including representatives of government and equal representatives of employers and workers, has been one of the most hardworking groups in the ILO and has endeavoured to make the ILO relevant in the 21st century. It is to be commended on all the work over recent years that has gone into the development of this convention, which received overwhelming support in February this year.

I suggest to the House that the overwhelming vote of support, including that of Australia—and I am delighted with the role of the Australian government in voting for this convention—illustrates the importance of this convention as a single instrument for the international regulation of safety, training and pollution in the maritime industry. We should not forget that it is the culmination, in terms of dedication and effort, of five years of intensive negotiations and it has the strong backing of maritime employers in Australia—absolute commitment from employers.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Prior to the suspension of the Main Committee I was referring to the importance of the maritime convention 2006.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Before the division in the House, I was making my final remarks on the maritime convention 2006, indicating to the chamber that this convention has important ramifications not just for the exploited seafarers of flag of convenience vessels but also for Australian seafarers. In the international environment it is regarded as a benchmark for other global industries, reflecting the success of the ILO in cleaning up what were outdated conventions across a range of aspects of the seafarers industry. As the ILO Director-General said, it is a landmark development for working conditions. The convention sets minimum requirements for seafarers to work on a ship, including hours of work and rest, accommodation, recreational facilities, food and catering, health protection, medical care, welfare and social security protection. It is what any decent society ought to provide to all workers irrespective of the country they embark from. It is also exceptionally important because, unlike previous conventions, this maritime convention of 2006 has teeth with legally binding standards which can be enforced. I commend the convention to the House.

In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the second reading amendment moved by the member for Oxley but also request that the minister, in response, advise the House of the government’s intention as to how it progresses the ratification of the maritime convention 2006 following its ratification by the ILO on 23 February with the support of Australian employers, the shipping industry, workers’ representatives and the government. I commend the convention to the House and merely state in conclusion that it is a major breakthrough with respect to the nature of the work in the ILO in one of the foundation industries that the ILO has been paying attention to since its origins. It also reflects the capacity of the modern ILO to front up to renewing and reviewing outdated conventions to reflect the nature of the 21st century.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak today on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 because at the core of the Australian maritime industry are issues that affect all Australians, whether they be land-dwelling or seafaring—those issues being protection of our coastal environment, national security along our coastlines and in our ports, the working conditions of Australians and others who work in this country and Australia’s capacity in the long run to compete globally by building a strong, efficient workforce. The bill is specific to the maritime industry, but the essence of the bill pertains to all Australians because it speaks to the rights of all people in their workplace—or, rather, in relation to the four issues that I spoke of, it fails to speak to them: it fails to speak adequately to the security of our nation, the protection of our coastal environment and working conditions of Australians and those from overseas who work in our coastal waters.

The bill amends a suite of maritime legislation, four acts in all, relating to general maritime navigation, ship safety and the impact of shipping on the marine environment as well as various administrative matters. These are all important concerns, and that is why the Australian Labor Party will be supporting the bill, albeit with a second reading amendment. While Labor does support the bill, it does not support the Howard government’s failed administration of maritime policy. The member for Oxley has moved a second reading amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:‘whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the government for:

(a)

failing to uphold Australia’s national interest by adopting anti-Australian shipping policies that favour foreign vessels and crew despite the risk to national security, Australian jobs and the natural environment;

(b)

failing to ensure adequate security in relation to the shipping of dangerous goods and hazardous material, including explosives precursors such as ammonium nitrate; and

(c)

failing to ensure ships comply with the requirement to provide details of crew and cargo forty-eight hours before arrival.’

In respect of these major issues in our maritime industry, the government falls short yet again. We on this side of the House condemn the Howard government for failing to uphold Australia’s national interest by adopting these anti-Australian shipping policies that favour foreign vessels. We on this side of the chamber are committed to the Australian maritime industry. The member for Blair in his earlier speech raved on for quite some time about the Labor Party’s support of what he called our union mates in the maritime industry. Let me say for the record that the Labor Party absolutely support the Australian workers in the maritime industry, as they deserve to be supported. Call them our union mates if you like, because they are union members, but basically at their heart they are Australian workers and they deserve the support not just of the opposition but of the government.

Labor acknowledges the real and vital role Australia’s maritime industry and its workers have played in national security and the role that it should still be playing in defence and economic prosperity. We also acknowledge that the Howard government’s policy of supporting cheap foreign shipping serves to threaten Australia’s national security, risk our coastal environment, facilitate the human rights abuse of foreign crews and significantly sacrifice jobs for Australian workers. The Maritime Union of Australia and their global equivalent, the International Transport Workers Federation, have been lobbying tirelessly for tighter security, safety and environmental controls on ships entering Australian waters—and quite rightly so. The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 does little to alleviate their deep and very real concerns about the poor security on flags of convenience ships, as they are known, which leave Australia vulnerable to terrorism and environmental disaster.

As members of this place will know, the practice of flags of convenience shipping is one where an open register allows shipping companies to register their vessels under a foreign flag. In other words, a ship can fly the flag of a country to which they have no connection. One in five of the world’s ships are registered under this system. This registration can even be obtained over the internet, which likely contributes to the poor and substandard state these ships are reported to be in, seeing that it seems that safety and seaworthy testing can be easily evaded.

Flags of convenience ships fly the flags of other countries because they are cheap. They have low registration costs and low or even no taxes. But they also have poor standards and cheap crews, crews that have little access to a union, crews that are forced to work in appalling conditions—on leaking ships with a lack of food, low wages, physical abuse and little or no training. Often they work with written instruction manuals in a language they do not speak. Flags of convenience shipping represents more than half of the worldwide ship losses. It also represents hundreds of lives lost in shipping accidents. Flags of convenience ships are also responsible for the majority of major maritime collisions, resulting in pollution, the death of marine life and the destruction of our natural environment. It is luck rather than good management that our coastal waters remain pristine from these major environmental disasters.

This bill does little to abate the human rights abuses that these flags of convenience ships of shame harbour. The bill does little to protect the rights of workers whose very lives are often at stake in these coffin ships. The bill does little to help assign responsibility to flags of convenience rust buckets as they trail their leaking oil slicks across our seas.

The Australian coastline stretches 36,700 kilometres. Its ocean territories cover more than 12 million square kilometres and cover three oceans. Our nearest neighbour is 200 kilometres to the north; then Timor, 640 kilometres; and New Zealand, 1,900 kilometres. Australia is the sixth largest nation in the world, after Russia, Canada, China, the United States and Brazil, and is the only one of the top six that is completely surrounded by water. Perhaps that is why the Howard government’s lack of concern over the flags of convenience shipping phenomenon cuts so deep. We are the largest island nation in the world, and we have relied on our maritime industry over our history. We have had a strong, viable maritime industry, which is seriously degraded after 10 years of the Howard government’s inaction. We have the longest coastline in the world. We have the most to protect. We have the most need to protect our vulnerable country by providing secure entry to our nation from the oceans that surround us. We have the most need to service our vast country via our vast waters and the most need to supply proper and safe working conditions for Australian seafarers and maritime workers. On that point, we have the most need to supply jobs to Australian seafarers and maritime workers—full stop. I will talk more about that later, more on the impact that the Howard government favouring foreign vessels and crews has had on the number of Australian workers employed at sea in Australian waters.

The irony is that many of the flags of convenience ships plying our waters, bringing with them potential environmental hazards and certain human rights abuses, are flagged to landlocked countries. At least 40 countries, many of them developing countries, rent out their flags to shipping companies of any nationality. The country opening a flagging register does not have to be situated on the coast. Indeed, landlocked Bolivia is one of the top 10 maritime countries in the world. Australia, the largest island, with one of the longest coastlines in the world, is not anywhere near the top of the table. In fact, we are significantly far down.

Responsibility is the real problem with this issue. The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 addresses culpability to the extent of an increase in offence provisions but it does not assist in determining just who it is that is culpable. Our world famous and world heritage listed Great Barrier Reef stretches for more than 2,300 kilometres along the north-eastern coast. If, for example, a shipping accident occurs off the coast in Queensland resulting not only perhaps in the tragic loss of human life but most certainly in oil spilled, with this flag of convenience ship flagged in Bolivia, owned in Switzerland, crewed by labour from Cambodia and captained by a Greek national, who is responsible for the environmental damage and where does the buck stop? Let me tell you it certainly does stop with the Australian government, which has failed to act on this issue for many years.

Australia has one of the most coast-dwelling populations in the world. More than 80 per cent of us live within 100 kilometres of the coast, and the majority of us live very close to our thriving ports. The impact such an environmental disaster occurring in Australian waters would have on the Australian way of life is worth noting. To keep with the example of the Great Barrier Reef, tourism is now the largest commercial activity in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, generating over $1 billion per annum. The marine tourism industry is a major contributor to the Australian economy. This could be said about any part of our coastline: the pristine waters off the coast of Western Australia that attract people to places like Port Hedland in the north of the state and Esperance on the southern coast; the spectacular seas of the Eyre Peninsula off the Great Australian Bight; and, a little closer to my electorate, the famous waves of Bondi beach.

Being a coast-dwelling population, it would be natural to conclude that there would be a fair proportion of Australians employed as seafarers, employed on the ships that move cargo and the like up and down our 36,700 kilometres of coastline. Sadly, this is no longer the case. We live in the reality of the outrageous situation where the number of people employed in seafaring jobs in our coastal waters is being negatively affected by the presence of cheap labour in the form of foreign crews of flags of convenience vessels. The Howard government has not sufficiently amended maritime legislation to protect the rights of Australian workers. In fact, over 10 years its policies have decimated the Australian coastal fleet and put thousands of Australian seafarers out of work.

The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill deals in part with amendment to the Navigation Act 1912. However, it fails with respect to flags of convenience shipping by not sufficiently amending legislation to stamp out the abuse of single and continuing voyage permits. Labor has long held the view that the unfettered granting of permits to foreign ships represents a security risk to Australia also. If the ships entering our waters and our ports are flags of convenience vessels, which many are, then Australian authorities still have no way of tracing the owners of these ships and very little way of knowing who is actually aboard. There is no real background check undertaken on just who it is that constitutes these crews of foreign workers. This leaves our nation well and truly open to terrorism. Shipping in Australia is still the best way to transport dangerous materials from one side of the country to the other; it is much safer for us all than land transport. Because of that, it is important that we have a secure maritime system where we know who is staffing the ships, who owns the ships and that the ships in our waters have some responsibility to this country.

Another of Labor’s long held views is that the Howard government does not care about the Australian worker and certainly does not care about the maritime worker. The Howard government’s favouring of foreign crewed vessels can only come at the expense of Australian workers, and what an expensive price to pay. We are the largest country in the entire world that is completely surrounded by water, a country reliant on a vibrant shipping industry, and yet our maritime legislation allows for the cheapest, exploited foreign crews to regularly work our waters and service our country in favour of Australian workers. I am not just talking here about ships that come in from other countries, bring in their cargo, move up and down the coast delivering it and leave. I am talking here about ships that ply the seas between our major cities on a regular basis. They are here in our coastal waters on an almost permanent basis, leaving only when they have to.

Where an Australian worker is denied a job, an Australian family is also denied an income. There is no doubt about the ability of our seafarers and maritime workers. Of course skilled Australian workers would be highly sought after as crews, but at what cost? We cannot accept, in any of our industries, either on land or at sea, Australian workers being forced into a position for jobs on the wage rates of our large neighbours such as China.

We hear quite often in this parliament that wages need to be cheaper. We see now the government allowing visas to bring unskilled people into this country to do apprenticeships and do Australians out of jobs. But we have also seen for many years a government that is prepared to see the Australian transport industry staffed within our own waters by the cheapest, most exploited labour in the world—again, Australia competing in its own country, in its own waters, on the basis of the incredibly low rates of Chinese and Indonesian workers.

It is unimaginable that that would happen on land. It is unimaginable, if we were talking about our rail system or our trucking system, that a foreign company would be able to move into Australia with its trucks and its staff from overseas and pay what in Australia would be called slave labour rates without any real conditions. I fail to see why, if it is not allowed on the mainland, it is allowed in our coastal waters—again, not just the ships that are coming in from other countries but the ships that work here on a regular basis. That is what they do: they go from Brisbane to Sydney to Melbourne to Adelaide to Perth and back—over and over again—with the cheapest, most exploited labour in the world.

Australia may be an island nation but a fantasy island we are not. This is the real world. In the real world the bottom line is punctuated absolutely by the dollar sign. In the real world, desperate underdeveloped nations full of desperate people risk their lives and limbs on rust buckets, coffin ships and ships of shame. But that does not mean that Australia has to be part of a world that allows people to work under those conditions. We need a strong voice against any circumstances in which people are treated that way. We are against child labour. We equally should be against this unbelievable exploitation of some of the most desperate people in the world, who spend their lives on ships that can sink at any time, with no conditions and for little wages, if any.

Yet in Australia, with this government, that is tolerated. And it is tolerated in order to weaken the very ‘union mates’ that the member for Blair accused us of supporting. There can be no doubt that it is part of the government strategy to weaken the maritime unions by ensuring that their workers are more and more on the dole. There is no doubt that, in their attacks on the unions, they are prepared to see Australian workers literally cast aside, as we have seen in the industrial relations legislation that they introduced late last year.

There is no doubt that this is a government with a fixed ideology that is so full of hatred for unions that it is prepared to sacrifice Australian workers in its battle to win a war. This government is against a union that is of course a group of workers in the first place. I am astonished by the capacity of this government to refer to unions as though they are not workers. The next thing we will hear is it talking about the police force as though they are not the police. When you are talking about the union, you are talking about a group of workers who have come together and formed a collective in order to bargain for their rights.

Working on a ship in Australian waters should be treated no differently from working on the mainland. If it is not good enough on the Australian mainland to bring in foreign workers from overseas at slave rates, then it is not good enough to do it in Australian waters—it is just not good enough. Remember that Australia’s ocean territory covers more than 12 million square kilometres and takes in three oceans. We should be one of the great seafaring nations of the world. That is what we could have been. Ten years after the Howard government, we are nowhere near that. Our fleet has been decimated—and, along with our fleet, so has our shipbuilding capacity. If you knock out the Australian fleet, you knock out industries that support it.

This bill does some good things but it just does not go far enough. This government has presided over a deliberate weakening of the Australian maritime industry and a decimation of the Australian fleet, and it is about time it acted to turn that around.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 and support Labor’s second reading amendment as moved by the member for Oxley, which condemns the Howard government for:

(a)

failing to uphold Australia’s national interest by adopting anti-Australian shipping policies that favour foreign vessels and crew despite the risk to national security, Australian jobs and the natural environment;

(b)

failing to ensure adequate security in relation to the shipping of dangerous goods and hazardous material, including explosives precursors such as ammonium nitrate; and

(c)

failing to ensure ships comply with the requirement to provide details of crew and cargo forty-eight hours before arrival.

This bill makes disparate amendments to four separate pieces of maritime legislation. Amendments to the first piece of legislation, the Lighthouses Act 1911, provide for the maintenance of maritime navigational aids and put in place higher penalties for damaging aids or failing to report such damage. Labor generally welcomes these amendments. The bulk of the amendments contained within the bill, however, relate to the Navigation Act 1912, which is the principal Commonwealth act relating to shipping movement and safety, crewing matters, wrecks and salvage. Among other things, the amendments revise pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified and set out in the regulations; revise the provisions relating to the reporting of ship movements; revise provisions relating to alcohol and other drugs and allow for the taking of mouth swabs to test for alcohol and other drugs; provide immunity for civil claims for pilots and pilotage providers; remove the requirement for six months notice before the minister can cancel a continuing voyage permit; and increase penalties for major offences that pose a threat to life or the environment.

The bill also amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act. That act implements the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. The bill amends the act to require Australian chemical tankers to prepare and carry a noxious liquid substance plan and to provide that security paid by the owner or master in the event of a pollution breach must cover the maximum amount of penalty that may be payable by all members of the crew. It also seeks to clarify that documents that may be served on a ship’s agent include documents that may be served on the owner, the master or any member of the crew.

The fourth act that this bill amends is the Shipping Registration Act. This act facilitates the registration of ships in Australia—dear, we wish that would happen. It grants ships Australian nationality and provides for the registration of mortgages over ships. The bill before us amends the act to provide that mortgages can be removed from the register at the request of the mortgagee. It allows the minister to delegate his or her powers under the act to a staff member of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and provides for access to the Australian Register of Ships via electronic means. It sounds very complex. Having navigated these disparate amendments across four separate acts, the Australian people could be forgiven for feeling just a little at sea.

There is certainly very little sense of a common theme to these amendments, other than their focus on increasing penalties in a bid to represent a more appropriate deterrent and/or punishment. We have to wonder just what the government has been doing for 10 years.

The bulk of the bill is, however, devoted to updating various aspects of the Navigation Act. It is this act and these amendments that I wish to focus on. Curiously, the amendments appear to be unrelated to recommendations made by the government’s own review of the Navigation Act in 2000. Indeed, this review is not mentioned in either the explanatory memorandum or the second reading speech. Again, you have to ask: what was the point of the government’s Navigation Act review in the first place? Regrettably, the Australian people are long used to this government commissioning reviews and inquiries that appear to go nowhere and unfortunately achieve very little.

After 10 long years, this Howard government still has no policy to support Australian shipping, let alone support maritime workers and crews that visit in these ships. Instead, we have a government that remains hell-bent on issuing single and continuous voyage permits to foreign ships, many of which are flag of convenience vessels that use substandard vessels and engage cheap foreign labour. I always take the opportunity to praise a former member from my region, the Hon. Peter Morris, who did so much to reveal the ships of shame and continues to be a champion for better maritime activity and regulation.

In talking about these flag of convenience vessels, I see that there are staff from departments here and I urge them to go and visit a ship that has a foreign crew and that perhaps has been flagged in some way as a ship of concern. Having done so, I can only tell you that, looking in the eyes of Burmese crew, all I could see was fear. It is not a nice experience. You know they are being exploited. Just sit with a Greek master who speaks no English until suddenly you say something and he breaks into English and speaks to you. You know that honesty is not extended. I do recommend that all members of the coalition take an opportunity to visit some of the ships that ply our waters.

It is also worth noting the decision made last Friday by the ILO, the International Labour Organisation, to adopt a new maritime convention, best known as the ‘seafarers bill of rights’, which will protect the world’s 1.2 million seafarers employed in the global shipping industry. It requires a response from this government. Significantly, the seafarers bill of rights has the tripartite support of unions, governments and shipowners, and I congratulate Paddy Crumlin, the MUA National Secretary and vice-chairperson of the workers group maritime session at the ILO, on the central role he played in this landmark decision. I look forward to the Australian government ratifying this convention as soon as possible and applying it in full. This is the least we can do to help stop the terrible exploitation to which ships’ crews are too often subjected.

Let us also look at this government’s track record when it comes to using foreign ships to transport goods around Australian ports. The latest Australian maritime transport compendium, commissioned by the Australian Shipowners Association, lays open the Howard government’s complete lack of support for an Australian shipping industry, as it maps the rapidly growing use of foreign ships to move goods between our ports. It reveals that since the 1991-92 year the number of permits issued to foreign ships has grown by over 325 per cent. In 2003-04, which is the last full year subject to the report, foreign vessels were permitted to carry 27.5 per cent of the Australian interstate and intrastate sea freight trade, up from eight per cent when Labor last held office.

Significantly, foreign seafarers are not subject, as has been pointed out in this debate, to the same rules as Australian seafarers serving on Australian ships. Not only are they denied Australian pay and working conditions and the protections that they bring but also they are not subject to the same security regime as Australian seafarers. As a person who has now been involved in two aviation security inquiries, I see an absolute lack of the same commitment to maritime security by the Howard government. I can think of no greater threat to our national security than this lax administration of foreign ships in the Australian coastal trade. Despite the government’s fanfare surrounding the soon to be implemented maritime security identification card regime, this regime imposes no additional requirements on foreign seafarers. Indeed, truck drivers delivering goods to our ports will be subject to much more stringent background and identity checking than foreign seafarers. So much for, ‘We’ll control who comes to this country.’

The extent to which the Howard government has mismanaged coastal shipping permits was finally revealed in a report last year in the Australian newspaper. This report detailed the findings of an internal audit conducted by KPMG for the Department of Transport and Regional Services, DOTARS. Not surprisingly, the Australian was forced to use freedom of information laws to obtain a copy of that internal audit, which the Howard government had steadfastly refused to release. This compliance review of coastal shipping permits was completed in October 2004. It delivered a damning assessment of the government’s performance, finding that the administration of coastal shipping licences and permits for foreign vessels was a complete mess. The audit revealed that one in six coastal shipping permits is granted without a signed application form, so the government runs a high risk of issuing permits based on bogus or unauthorised applications. This audit also revealed that inadequate financial controls mean that the government may be unaware of fraud, errors or other irregularities related to the licence and permit applications and that poor record keeping means that data relating to one in five approved licences and permit applications is either ‘absent or incomplete’.

Even more damning, however, is the fact that DOTARS was found to have breached the navigational coastal trade regulations and ministerial guidelines on the regulation of coastal shipping by failing to establish if a licensed ship is available before issuing a permit. The current Navigation Act provides that the minister for transport may issue a single voyage permit or continuous voyage permit to an unlicensed vessel to engage in trade between Australian ports. However, a permit may only be issued if there is no licensed ship available or the service provided by the licensed ships is inadequate and the minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Our successive ministers have been very easily satisfied.

But a massive 325 per cent increase in the number of permits issued to foreign ships under this government’s watch is ample evidence of the ongoing failure of successive ministers to ensure compliance with the act and its regulations. At the same time that the Howard government have presided over a rapidly dwindling Australian coastal trade fleet, they have continued to prop up foreign shipping interests by allowing substandard vessels, crewed with cheap foreign labour, to have seemingly unfettered access to trade between Australian ports. The ability to move from port to port without the inconvenience of having to lodge a signed permit form must seem like a gift from the maritime gods to unscrupulous operators—and there are many of them. That these ships traverse our ports while sometimes carrying dangerous goods, including explosives, seems not to worry the government too much either.

As the member for Newcastle, I am fortunate to have one of Australia’s busiest and most efficient ports in my electorate. Last financial year, trade through the Port of Newcastle set a new record, with 83.5 million tonnes of cargo worth more than $7 billion. So we do take our maritime trade very seriously. The biggest trade item, of course, was coal, which accounted for 93 per cent of the total trade throughput—a figure that maintains Newcastle’s position as the world’s leading coal export port.

But coal is not the only commodity that passes through the Port of Newcastle. Last September, an Antiguan-registered and Ukrainian- and Bulgarian-crewed vessel—it gets complicated, doesn’t it?—called Pancaldo loaded 3,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, a potential explosive, in Newcastle, bound for Gladstone, after being granted a single voyage permit to trade on the Australian coast.

Ammonium nitrate is widely used in agriculture and in mining, but of course it is also used by terrorists. When mixed with fuel oil, used to power ships, it can create a bomb big enough to take out a port city like the city of Newcastle. Ammonium nitrate was used in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre and in attacks on US embassies in Africa in the 1990s. In 2004, more than 11,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate were carried on the Australian coastline by foreign ships operating under permits with foreign crews. And the amount of ammonium nitrate imported into Australia in the last five years has tripled.

I must also point out that a crane broke in the incident at Newcastle, which I have mentioned. It was a very worrying incident. The equipment on the ship was faulty, possibly from poor maintenance and neglect. The dropping of a load like that into a ship—which, obviously, can have fuel oil lying around—was potentially of great concern to the people of Newcastle.

It is now increasingly apparent that Australian authorities have no way of checking the bona fides of these foreign crews. Labor argues that the carriage of high-consequence dangerous goods like ammonium nitrate by foreign ships must stop now if Australia is serious about minimising the threat of terrorism. It is clear to everyone—except, it seems, the Howard government—that the safest way to transport high-consequence dangerous goods around Australia is on Australian ships crewed by Australian men and women, subject to appropriate and rigorous security screening. It is bad enough that the government have facilitated an explosion in the number of continuous voyage permits issued for foreign ships, but it is even worse that they leave Australia vulnerable because they are unable or unwilling to regulate coastal trade according to the rules.

Significantly, multinational companies like BHP Billiton are light years ahead of the Howard government in terms of understanding those risks and the long-term costs associated with the increased use of unlicensed foreign ships trading along our coastline. At a meeting with BHP Billiton in Melbourne recently, they stated that they refuse to use flag of convenience vessels to ply their trade along the West Australian coast. As far as BHP are concerned, it is just not worth the risk. The Australian government should take note.

In the absence of leadership from the Australian government, port users and operators have got on with the business of ensuring security in Australian ports. The port of Newcastle is growing rapidly. With several new infrastructure projects coming on line, this growth will continue.

On top of record coal exports and trade through the port, the port has recently gained national recognition for its whole-of-port approach to the implementation of its maritime security plan. Last November Newcastle port was named the inaugural winner of the innovation in security category at the 2005 Australian shipping and transport awards.

This achievement deserves special mention as it reflects the collaborative approach taken by port users—an approach that unfortunately we see very infrequently with the government. That collaborative approach in the port of Newcastle includes the Maritime Union of Australia, to ensure the ongoing security of our port under the leadership of the Newcastle Port Corporation.

We talked about pilotage. I must acknowledge Adsteam and its recent invitation. I was able to sponsor a new tug in the harbour of Newcastle. I am feeling very maternal about that tug now. I look forward to its long career.

In Newcastle we have a well established and effective port users group as well as a seafarers welfare committee that meets regularly. As a member of these organisations, the port corporation knows the benefits of collaboration across the industry. It understands that the success of any security plan depends on the goodwill and attitudes of all people associated with the industry. The establishment of any risk culture or security culture does, of course, involve people. Certainly all port users and operators need to be involved.

Contrary to the Howard government’s approach to doing business on the waterfront—it has always seemed to adopt divide and rule tactics, complete with accessories such as balaclavas and Rottweilers—the collaborative approach taken by the Newcastle Port Corporation has proven to be highly effective. It is indicative of the way we do maritime business in Newcastle. The approach continues to serve us well, and it is especially pleasing to see it being recognised on the national stage.

Effective collaboration between all port users and operators meant that recently, when the port of Newcastle was temporarily obstructed as a result of a protest by Greenpeace activists, the port corporation, in conjunction with the police, was able to act swiftly and fairly to maintain port operations. This was something of a test run for maritime security in our port. To everyone’s credit, no-one was hurt, the matter was resolved quickly, and the port was able to maintain operations throughout the whole period.

Labor has often outlined the things that this government should do to secure our maritime borders. The first concerns the enforcement of crew and manifest advance warning. The government has a 48-hour rule in place which means that Australian ports should be notified of a ship’s manifest and crew 48 hours prior to the vessel docking, but it does not adequately enforce even this rule, and identification remains a great issue.

Some of the amendments will support crews and workers in the maritime industry. That is terribly important. I would like to acknowledge that in the last six months in Newcastle there have been three deaths of some amazing maritime leaders from the union movement—John Brennan, Bill Bodenham and Tom Potter. I was able to attend two of the funerals. The funeral of John Brennan, who was originally the leader of the Seamens Union and subsequently a veteran of the MUA, was a history lesson in maritime security. It certainly showed that, without that sort of commitment, conditions for crews and others who work in the maritime industry would never have improved. I pay tribute to the people who have improved the conditions for all Australian maritime workers and who have always been committed to improving the conditions for crews of foreign vessels.

In the last term of parliament, I assisted a Pacific island crew who had not been paid their entitlements over periods of years. They got another payment out of that little bit of pressure, but they still did not get full payment. I think that to date they still have not got full payment.

I again say that it is time the Australian government showed leadership in this area—not just a bit of bandaiding in terms of legislation but a real commitment to the ILO convention and improvement of our maritime security and our maritime industry in a way that brings some dignity and pride to this nation.

Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I realise that I am only going to begin this speech on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 and will have to continue it at some other time. Two things motivate me to speak on this legislation. One is a family and friend connection with the merchant navy and the Australian Navy that goes back 150 years in this country and the stories of World War II, in particular, but also World War I, and the need for a merchant navy for any nation that is serious about security. The second is an event that happened in the state of the member opposite, the member for Moore, in the early 1990s, up in the north-west. We were up there on a caucus visit to Woodside Petroleum. We were having a look at shipping and industry at that particular time. We went down and saw a vessel—a huge bulk carrier—tied up at the wharf. I remember the vessel; it was huge and in very poor shape. I remember that we spoke to the captain of that ship. You could see the fear in his eyes. Three or four days later—I think maybe four days later—that ship disappeared off the face of the earth never to be heard of again. They are common stories about what happens on the Australian coast.

Labor supports the Australian shipping industry and the seafarers and other workers involved in this industry. This bill makes various amendments to acts relating to the shipping industry, and Labor supports them all. In fact, Labor would like to see the government do a lot more—a hell of a lot more. We want it acknowledged that the government’s ‘low cost at any cost’ approach to industry management has seriously harmed what was one of our great industries and institutions. We would like the government to acknowledge also that it must develop a shipping industry policy and rebuild the industry before it is too late.

The United Kingdom at one stage followed the foolhardy policies of the Howard government. They have now remedied that. None of our allies have the silly policies that we do or have shown disregard for security in their nation by abandoning their own merchant navy. That is what this government has done. When those opposite get up and talk about security in this nation, they are joking; they are not serious. Any stories from World War II will make you realise you that you cannot defend this country—or supply military personnel in another place—unless you have a merchant navy. Recent incidents in East Timor showed quite clearly that we could not supply our own personnel because we had no effective merchant navy.

The truth is that in this decade of the Howard government being in power, the government has shown but scant interest in the fortunes of the industry and the welfare of the workers who rely on the industry’s strength. The results of that lack of interest are that the industry is ailing and jobs have been and continue to be lost. But there are far more important factors than even those, important though they be. This is an especially strange and shameful approach by the government of a country with one of the world’s longest coastlines. The shipping industry in Australia should be a very strong one. Coastal shipping presents a viable and relatively safe alternative to road transport—and, if measured sensibly, a cost effective option as well. A healthy coastal shipping industry would also be of great benefit to many regional centres and the people who live and work there.

With our lengthy coastline and with a history since European settlement which is intricately and inevitably interwoven with all things maritime, Australia has until recent years been a significant player in global maritime issues. Unfortunately, the government has failed to support and promote the industry. As a consequence, the Australian shipping industry is no longer considered a significant player at international level, let alone on a national level. Under the Howard government, Australia has virtually ceased to be an active participant in international organisations like the International Maritime Organisation. It has also ceased to be at the leading edge of maritime policy development and reform. It is the lack of leadership from the federal government that has caused Australia’s reputation in the international shipping industry to be in such decline.

One of the consequences of the government’s failure to support the nation’s shipping industry is that our national security is put at unnecessary risk. The government, as I said, seems to have forgotten the invaluable role played by the merchant navy in the protection of our shores during World War II and, I repeat, the difficulties in East Timor in very recent times. A strong shipping industry will provide a bulwark against modern-day threats to our national security. On the other hand, an industry weakened by government inactivity and lack of interest simply cannot play such a role.

The member for Newcastle referred to revelations last year about flag of convenience ships carrying ammonium nitrate along our coast. That issue demonstrates this weakness. The ship, flagged in Antigua and with an unvetted foreign crew, carried the highly dangerous cargo of ammonium nitrate from Newcastle to Gladstone. I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.