Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I introduced the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill to safeguard safety standards in our marine industries and in particular to respond to the reduction in standards brought about by the passage of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Bill which, despite containing positive elements, has had a problematic effect on those industries and the men and women who work in and depend on them.

The national law bill was proposed by the government despite it being aware of the risk that standards would decrease as a direct result of the bill. In fact, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers has been concerned for some time about the risk of lowered training standards and consequently, following a meeting in 2009 between the Engineer's Institute and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, a number of standards were agreed to that would have enhanced the qualification requirements for engineers. I regret to say that here it is, 2013, and that agreement has not progressed beyond a draft marine order.

This bill, the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill, will go some way to remedying things and in doing so help to improve the workplace health and safety of many Australian workers, because this bill directly affects workers on our transport ships, offshore oil and gas facilities, and harbour-management vessels. It also indirectly affects travellers on all our passenger transports, fishermen on small to large vessels and in fact all those who use the seas for their work or transport. By simply ensuring that all work done on Australian marine vessels is achieved to the highest possible standard, the very safety of everyone on board those vessels is genuinely enhanced.

Such reform is imperative for Australia. As an island nation, with Tasmania additionally separated by Bass Strait, the proper maintenance of our vessels and safety of our maritime workers is obviously essential.

I will now draw the House's attention to some of the key features of the bill. Firstly, it creates a much needed minimum time requirement for training on operational vessels, something urgently needed, I suggest, in light of the continuing concern in the institute that AMSA has an interest in reducing the onboard training period by two-thirds. I think it is obvious that training cannot be so drastically decreased while the same safety standard is expected. So clearly the longer training period should be codified, and this bill achieves that.

Consistency in training is every bit as important as the length of training when safety is concerned because, unless the industry can be sure that all those who achieve a marine qualification do so to the same standard, there simply can be no confidence that all the workers have the vital training necessary for their roles. To provide that confidence, this bill will standardise the examination of competency and include mandated written and oral components. These will provide examiners with a broad range of information about an engineer and together build a more complete profile of their capability.

Consistency must work both ways. While a standardised examination method provides confidence to the industry, creating uniform requirements consolidated into one piece of legislation also provides confidence to the engineers themselves. In other words, this bill makes it easier to determine which standards apply and to whom. But the bill does not simply establish the standard and leave the industry to its own devices, because there is provision for ongoing auditing of organisations that offers engineer accreditation to ensure that an adequate standard is maintained in line with industry best practice.

Australia has some of the highest safety standards in the world and, as I have said before in this place, a strong tradition of appropriate wages and working conditions. But, when this parliament passed the national law bill we, and inadvertently most of us, put in place a regime that has resulted in working and safety conditions going backwards in one of our most vital industries. We need to set it right. It is that simple.

I commend the bill to the House and encourage members to put politics aside this time for the good of our marine engineers and all those who travel and work on the water.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers—in particular, federal secretary, Henning Christiansen; national organiser, Michael Bakhaazi; and Terry Snee, a fellow North Queenslander. I will not go over and repeat what was said by the mover, the eloquent member for Denison.

I represent most of the Great Barrier Reef—more than any other members do. Constantly we have boats whose motors break down or who go adrift, and we get wreckage on the reef; we get damage to marine life; and of course enormous costs on our rescue services in Queensland as well.

A lot of the people on these ships call themselves engineers when they would not qualify as a fitter in any respect in Australia. We strongly urge the government to set in stone three years training. If you have 10, 20 or 30 lives at risk, and there is incredible potential damage to flora and fauna—fauna in this case being marine life—then surely there should be a standard of responsibility. Your captain has navigational qualifications; you need your engineers to have proper serious qualifications. A lot of the vessels coming from the Northern Hemisphere are very substandard.

What we are asking for here is that boats working on the Australian coastline meet a standard where the accreditation takes three years. The entrance examination requirements, if you like, the tests that they have to go through, should ensure that a person who works on that boat can work in safety. That is not the situation at the present moment. The current proposals that have been continuously coming through under successive governments reduce training, engineering and certifications standards. Ultimately that puts safety very much at risk.

The other effect, which is a very minor effect, is to provide jobs for Australians. At the present moment there has been a deliberate lowering of standards so they can bring people in from overseas to undermine our pay and conditions. Even if you agree with that, to put lives at risk so that someone can make a few extra bob every time a boat puts to sea is not a fair exchange and not a fair deal for the wider population of Australia.

So, on behalf of all those people who live in and along the Great Barrier Reef areas of Australia, I very strongly endorse the proposals put forward by the member for Denison in the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013. We carry a particular investment in the proposals that are coming forward here. I think they provide an excellent model, quite frankly, for other industries, such as the mining industry, as well. We commend this bill to the House.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this private member's bill, the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013, moved by the member for Denison. It is an important matter and the bill goes to the qualification standards of marine engineers, watchkeepers, deck officers and others in the Australian maritime industry.

It is important for the reasons that the honourable members have outlined: it goes to safety in an important industry; it goes to the safety of the men and women who staff our vessels up and down our coastlines; and it goes to the safety of our marine environment more generally—not only human safety but environmental safety, as the honourable member for Kennedy alluded to.

I want to focus on the matters that the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy have dealt with. The concern arises out of changes to the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, which was agreed to internationally a few years ago and which reduced the minimum standards of training from three years to 12 months. I know there is genuine and valid concern about that. I understand that these changes, which were negotiated through the International Maritime Organization, were instigated by Iran—and I am not sure that that is necessarily an indication of world's best practice when it comes to maritime safety.

I note that AMSA has given sworn evidence before Senate estimates that it has no intention of reducing the requirement from three years down to 12 months. That was almost exactly 12 months ago, on 23 May 2012, under questioning by Senator Williams:

Mr Kinley: There is no proposal to compress that from three years to one year.

Senator WILLIAMS: It will not happen?

Mr Kinley: No.

This was then prosecuted again a few months later in the estimates of October 2012, where again Mr Kinley made it clear that there was no intention of doing that—and that is very welcome, I must say.

I understand the intention of the honourable member for Denison to enshrine this in legislation. There have been concerns expressed by the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers—which, in my experience, is a very considered body that makes considered approaches to public policy and in the national interest. They have expressed an ongoing concern to ensure that there is no diminution of the requirements of training and qualifications. I do understand, let us be clear, the worldwide move to more competency based standards and the focus on outcomes rather than inputs when it comes to training. But there do need to be minimum standards, and they are currently outlined in regulations.

As I said, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers has taken an approach which I think is a considered one, and I would certainly encourage AMSA to engage with the institute in a considered, thoughtful and open-minded way. AMSA has important responsibilities which it does acquit, but it is important to be consultative with the key players and experts in their field. The institute has, for example, recognised that there are skill shortages in the industry and has taken steps to work constructively to see those skill shortages met through sensible immigration. I would again say that that is an approach that should be welcomed and I would encourage AMSA to work constructively with the institute in that regard.

The government's position is that the requirements are appropriately dealt with in regulation and, as such, this legislation will not be supported by the government. But I do take this opportunity in the House to indicate that I do think it is important that AMSA and the government—and AMSA, in particular, as the regulator—constructively work with all stakeholders, including the institute, which has brought some expertise to this field and has taken a constructive approach.

Obviously any moves to reduce the requirements for training for marine engineers, deck officers, watchkeepers and others will be very closely scrutinised in the public and in this House and the other place, as they should be. AMSA have an important role to play in regulating our marine and transport safety, and I am sure that they will continue to engage very constructively with all stakeholders, including the institute, as they carry out that role.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill proposed by the member for Denison seeks to codify in legislation the qualification and examination requirements for marine engineers in Australia. This differs from the current model under which the Australian Maritime Safety Authority establishes these standards which are set out in a legislative instrument known as Marine Orders Part 3. By way of background, it should be noted that last year AMSA undertook a formal review of Marine Orders Part 3, releasing a draft order and seeking industry feedback on its proposal. It was through this process that concerns were raised with me by some maritime engineers that the proposed new standards would see AMSA water down the qualification requirements for marine engineers. I have received emails and letters from a number of marine engineers and was contacted by the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers—whom I note are represented in the gallery tonight—who I understand represent around 3,000 marine engineers, all expressing the same view—that is, that marine engineer qualifications and certification requirements were being downgraded.

Australia prides itself in many areas as having world's best practice, including our standards for education, safety and training. Yet the contention from marine engineers is that training and certification requirements would be lessened as a result of AMSA's proposed reforms. However, in this respect it should be noted that AMSA has subsequently withdrawn its draft of Marine Orders Part 3 to allow further consultation and consideration to be undertaken. Despite this, marine engineers continue to have concerns, particularly as the election date draws closer, and with only four weeks of sittings remaining there is a desire to tie up loose ends before the parliament is prorogued.

They know that this government, particularly the currently minister, is particularly close to the Maritime Union. They observed how this government puts MUA demands ahead of the interests of Australian industry, with its so-called shipping reform package that was rushed through parliament last year, and they do not trust the government not to do some sweetheart deal with the MUA to squeeze engineers off Australian ships.

I understand that as far back as 2009 AMSA and the AIMPE were negotiating an update to Marine Orders Part 3 to better reflect current industry realities. In that respect, it is important to acknowledge that in general terms we have a shortage of skilled seafarers in Australia and an ageing workforce. This is in part because our marine engineers are so well-regarded they are often poached overseas. Having said that, addressing a skills shortage does not necessitate a lowering of the bar for qualifications and the coalition would be concerned at any attempt to do so.

It is vital that, in the isolated and inaccessible environment in which many of our ships operate, they have the requisite skills on board to address any problem as it arises. The private member's bill before the House establishes that certification of competency for marine engineers must be made by a suitably qualified examiner employed by AMSA. The bill also requires that prospective marine engineers must undergo an oral examination. The bill also sets out the standards for becoming a qualified engineer watchkeeper and engineer classes 1, 2 and 3. Finally, the bill sets out standards for the recognition of foreign certificates and where alternative methods of skill acquisition are appropriate to warrant the grant of a certificate of competency.

The bill, in taking qualification and certification standards out of the hands of AMSA and putting them into the hands of the parliament through an act, will, over time, make the evolution of those standards more cumbersome. However, it should be noted that for the time being the bill simply intends to codify the arrangements that we currently have in place. I acknowledge this point but I also acknowledge the concern of marine engineers that standards should not be decreased if there is a possibility that to do so could decrease safety standards on vessels.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the important work that our marine engineers, deck officers and seafarers do. Shipping is a significant part of our transport network—a part I would like to see grow in importance in the future. It is imperative that we get the regulatory settings right to ensure that our shipping industry is as safe, efficient and productive as possible. (Time expired)

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013. This minority parliament has been very good for the people of Australia. Because of this minority parliament, we have seen $13 billion put into clean and renewable energy, and the tax-free threshold will be lifted to $18,200 for many, many people from the start of next year. The Greens have been able to negotiate that, from 1 January 2014, parents will be able to take the kids to the dentist and use their Medicare card to get free dental treatment. We have also seen a lifting in the standard of protection offered to firefighters around this country. If this building were to catch on fire, I imagine most of us would be running out while the firefighters are running in. There is every chance that, as they run in to fight a fire, they will breathe in toxic smoke and that has been causing them cancer. Because of this minority parliament, we have been able to increase the protections and compensation that is available to those firefighters.

In these remaining few weeks of the parliament, we can do more for the Australian community and lock in some further protections for people right across this country. I have been approached by members of the Maritime Union of Australia, who have said that their long-running campaign for a national stevedoring code of practice to ensure safety on the docks was threatened to be stymied at the last minute, but now may not happen at all as a result of intervention from some large employers. I have written to the transport minister and the workplace relations minister offering to legislate their protection in the remaining weeks of this parliament. I have not yet received a reply.

One thing that is here, that we could do right now, is to enshrine the standards for our marine engineers. We have a good shipping industry in this country. It faces its challenges, in part because successive governments have not understood the importance to our trade or, indeed, our defence—let alone our economy—of having a good Australian owned shipping industry. We have a safe shipping industry. It is safe for the people who work on the ships. It is safe for the people who are out at sea. It is safe for our environment. One of the reasons for that safety is due to the high standards and the level of qualifications and professionalism of our marine and power engineers. Unfortunately, that has had to be defended against attacks. We have seen some of those attacks in recent years with the attempt to reduce the minimum time of study to become a marine engineer from three years to one year. We have been able to stop that. One thing worth noting is that that attempt to reduce the time from three years to one year was, in essence, reneging on an agreement that had been reached with the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers.

During my working life, including in parliament, I have had the privilege of working closely with a range of workers and their unions as well as with a range of organisations that might be described as craft unions. They are often smaller unions, organisations and professional institutes, and they are often non-political and nonpartisan in the sense that they do not necessarily hitch their wagon to a particular star but are prepared to work with those who will advance their interests. When one of those comes knocking on your door and says, 'There is a real concern about safety and we need you to stand up in parliament and fix it,' I for one am very happy to work with them.

There is a continual move to erode protections and minimum standards, and we must be always vigilant. This is not about enshrining anything like a closed shop. If anyone who is a member of another union, or not, wants to come in and work as an engineer, they should be able to; but that should not come at the expense of reducing the minimum standards. The minimum standards should be the minimum standards and whoever meets them can go and get a job.

There are a number of things we are still waiting for from the government. I am still waiting to see when we are going to redress the Allseas decision, which allows people to come and work without the appropriate labour standards applying. I am still waiting for advertising before we offer people work on 457 visas. But this legislation is something we can implement right now. I commend the bill to the House and I congratulate all the members of AIMPE who are here on their advocacy.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There can be done no doubt that an efficient, competitive and safe shipping industry is a critical thing for Australia. So too, therefore, is public confidence in the people who build, man and repair the vessels which fleet the industry. When all is said and done this private member's bill, the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013, seeks to address what appears to be a dispute between the government, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the AIMPE, which is the union that covers marine engineers, over the standards required to qualify as a marine engineer. I know there are other issues. For example, one issue at the heart of the dispute is the decision to dramatically reduce the number of training years required to qualify from three years down to one. Another is the decision to abolish the current requirement that applicants must pass a verbal test by an AMSA examiner in order to be issued an engineer's certificate of competency.

As I understand it, over many years the union has conferred with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority on the engineering reforms needed to the regulations that are known as the Maritime Orders Part 3. The orders prescribe the safety training certification requirements for marine engineers. I further understand that, in recognition of the fact that reform is required, the union had agreed in principle to a number of changes which, from its perspective, went to the heart of maintaining qualifications and standards—things like the formal recognition of prior learning experience and pathways to higher positions of responsibility.

We all understand the shift in recent years from the traditional, time based model to a competency based system. However, there appear to be legitimate concerns about some aspects of that new system. On the other side of the debate, the minister has pointed out a number of concerns with respect to this private member's bill. He says, 'The passage of this bill would result in Australia introducing outdated standards, inconsistent with global shipping, resulting in Australian shipping contravening international training and certification standards and conventions.' It appears to me that this issue could best be resolved by sitting down with the industry and discussing these issues.

Debate interrupted.