Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened to all of the opposition speakers who have spoken on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 and all I heard from each and every one of them was an attack on the unions, an attack on the minister, talk about refugee policy, which has nothing to do with this bill whatsoever, and talk about border protection. Not once did any member opposite specifically address the substance and the merits of this bill, which seeks to ensure that Australia's interests in offshore projects are indeed protected. I commend the member for Wills, who pointed that out so well and so clearly in his contribution to this debate.

Coalition members would like to see the multinationals that control the resource industry in Australia, both onshore and offshore, continue to operate without any restrictions and responsibilities. It is time that that came to an end. There is no logical reason whatsoever why the resources that are found offshore should be treated differently to the resources found on land in Australia and why workers who work on those resources on land should be treated any differently to the workers who are dealing with the resources found in the oceans.

This legislation arises from the Federal Court decision in the Allseas v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship case. The court found that the foreign workers in that case—those on board the two pipe-laying vessels Lorelay and Solitairewere not within the Australian migration zone and therefore did not require Australian visas. As a result of that decision, a task force was convened. I make it clear that that was done by the previous minister for immigration, not the current minister, whom members opposite seek to condemn and criticise because of what they refer to as his self-interest in this matter.

The task force was asked to consider a response to the Federal Court decision so as to ensure that those projects did in fact fall within Australian jurisdiction. I note that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea gives the Australian government the jurisdiction to do exactly that, and to implement the control that is required in order for Australia to protect its sovereign rights with respect to those mineral, oil or gas exploration projects that fall within Australia's economic zone. I also note that these amendments will ensure that areas currently in coastal waters and administered by the states and the Northern Territory will also be included in the Australian migration zone. Again, I believe that is appropriate.

If these amendments are passed it will mean that foreign workers, working from ocean vessels within Australian zones, will require a visa in order to do so. It is no different to a foreign worker working on the mainland. In my view there is no logical reason, as I have said earlier, why job-creation projects offshore, but within Australian jurisdiction, should be treated any differently to jobs created on the mainland. This becomes even more relevant when we know that offshore petroleum, mineral and gas exploration and development provide Australia with huge economic potential. Other speakers have talked about $100 billion of projects in the pipeline and I am sure that those figures are, in fact, correct. That means there will be many jobs created as a result of those investment decisions—investment decisions that are made under the jurisdiction and control of the Australian government. But what we currently have is a situation where, once the investment is made, the jobs that are likely to arise from those investment decisions do not go to Australians. They go to, in most cases at the moment, foreign workers.

This legislation, contrary to what those opposite would have you believe, is not about preventing foreign workers from working in Australian maritime zones, because where Australian workers cannot be found to fill these jobs then, just as is the case with all of the jobs we have in Australia, people will be entitled to apply to have foreign workers come in and do the work. In fact, this government currently has a skilled migration program that accounts for about two-thirds of all migrants that come into this country. It is very much the case that this government welcomes foreign workers coming into this country to fill the skill shortages we often have and which would otherwise prevent businesses and investments from proceeding—so we are very much for supporting that need when it arises and is clearly justified.

Presumably this also means that, when we have people working in those maritime zones and they fall within Australian government jurisdiction, they will also fall within, and be covered by, Australia's industrial relations laws. That is, the workers—be they Australian workers or foreign workers under 457 visas or any other type of visa—will be entitled to fair work conditions, fair remuneration and fair work entitlements. Of course that is not something that coalition members ever speak about; and not once in this debate did I hear any of the members opposite speaking about fair work conditions, fair remuneration or fair entitlements. Yet we know from past experience that some of the worst cases of worker abuse and appalling work conditions have occurred on board foreign flagged vessels operating within Australian waters. We spoke about this at length when we passed laws relating to the maritime industry in this place a couple of years ago, laws which have improved those conditions immensely, but laws which previously allowed work conditions in those industries to occur, within Australian waters, on foreign flagged vessels that we would never, ever agree to for the mainland—laws which resulted in lives being lost and environmental disasters occurring not only in Australian waters but around the world. We know that there was no supervision, no accountability and no oversight of the conditions that those workers were made to work under or the work they were carrying out—whether it met or complied with any standards. The fact is there were no standards. This legislation is not only about supporting Australian jobs, something that we on this side of the House are very proud to stand up and do, but also about ensuring that—whether those jobs are for Australians or for foreign workers—we are also supporting fair work conditions.

Members opposite talk about economic development, and how this is going to stand in the way of economic development, but never once about how this might stand in the way of safety at work and all the other issues I have referred to. What they are clearly interested in is protecting the profits of multinationals, rather than the jobs of Australians or the working conditions of all who will ultimately work on these projects when work begins. If these projects do not go ahead, it is not because of the working conditions and fair rates of pay that perhaps the workers are going to be entitled to; it is simply because world commodity prices are not where they need to be in order to make the projects viable. It has nothing to do with working conditions. The working conditions simply allow workers to be exploited and more profits to go into the hands of those multinationals.

This legislation does complement other legislation that the minister introduced into the House recently, and quite rightly so. The legislation says that, if there are jobs to be created in Australia, then the first consideration for filling those jobs should go to Australians. Where that is not possible then of course we will look for foreign workers to come in and assist, because we do not want to hold back or stall projects. But where it is possible, Australian workers ought to be given the first right to work within those waters. It is also important to ensure that where work is carried out, it is carried out under the standards and conditions that we have in Australia, which we all know far exceed the standards that apply to many, many other countries.

This is good legislation, because it is responsible legislation protecting our nation's assets and the rights of working people around the world. I commend the legislation to the House.

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

I rise to make a few brief comments in support of the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013. I, like many others, was quite disturbed when reading the Allseas decision and understanding the implications of it. The essence of the Allseas decision of the Federal Court, which correctly applied the law, was that if you are working on a vessel that pulled up near but did not in some sense connect with an offshore resource project and then moved away again, you were not in effect covered by Australian law and therefore it made it harder to attract the protection of Australian labour law. That is a result that many people would have found odd: here we had, within Australia's exclusive economic zone, resources that are being exploited, and people could be performing work in connection with that, but simply because they never set foot on a particular project or they always stayed on a ship, they were not going to attract the protections of Australian migration and labour law. Of course, the consequence of that is that as soon as we start carving out, within Australia's economic zone, pockets where our law does not apply, you encourage a race to the bottom on wages and conditions. For some time we have been urging the government to act in relation to the Allseas decision, and I am pleased that the legislation is now before the House.

The intention of the legislation is one that no-one could object to, and that is that if we have labour conditions and standards in Australia then they should apply uniformly. It is a principle that I hold dear that there is no objection to people coming in from overseas and working here. But, firstly, we should be exploring to make sure that there is no local labour available to do it. Secondly, if having explored that there is no locally available labour then we have to make sure that the people who come here and work, especially on our projects, get the same wages and conditions as an Australian worker working alongside them. If they do not, it is bad for everyone. It is bad for the worker who has come here because they are probably in a situation where they do not know their minimum entitlements; they do not know how to access the basic rights that Australian workers have. It is also bad for the person working next to them, because you are introducing, as I said before, a race to the bottom when, because they are entitled to those basic protections of Australian labour law, they are always going to be undercut by someone else who can be brought in to work more cheaply.

For a number of years, having worked in this area of the labour law before entering parliament and since being elected, I have heard a number of quite hair-raising tales about what is happening, especially in the shipping industry. The shipping industry is, by its nature, very mobile. It is quite easy to bring people in from overseas, because that is what ships do: they go from one country to another. I have heard tales of people—engineers, for example—going to work on a ship to find that the crew had already signed up to an agreement before leaving their home countries, and that agreement covered conditions that were substantially less than the conditions that apply here, but that agreement was legally binding and that engineer could do nothing about it. That gave cause for concern.

The fact that a lot of this is happening in connection with our resources sector should be especially concerning, because these resources are owned by all Australians. You only get one chance to dig up these resources or extract them from the ground and they can only be sold once. Once they are gone, they are gone. We are entitled to a fair return on those assets, and Australian workers are also entitled to share in the benefits of those resources. One thing that always strikes me is how mean-spirited are some of the largest corporations in this country and multinational corporations. They have absolutely no problem aggregating profits to themselves, but when it comes to sharing those profits with the workers and the people of this country who also have an ownership stake, they are the first ones to say they want the right to find the cheapest labour from anywhere around the globe. I am pleased that this bill is being brought before the House, because I think it fixes a problem that became apparent with the Allseas decision.

One of the issues that I have with the bill is a technical issue. We will pursue this issue when it comes to the Senate. We will make sure that, with respect to operations within Australia's exclusive economic zone, this bill closes the loophole in the way that it purports to. In particular, we want to make sure that the problem identified in Allseas—namely, when you have a ship that might not touch another installation—that loophole is fully closed and these changes also cover people working on vessels dredging, for example, a step removed from the laying of the pipes, where they may be moving between what are counted as areas for the purpose of the bill. That will be a crucial issue for us when the bill comes before the Senate. This issue has been raised with the minister's office. I understand it is an issue that the minister's office will look at, and I thank the minister for agreeing to look at it. The Greens will want to see this issue satisfactorily resolved before the bill passes the Senate. It is something we can look at and discuss because it is really a technical issue that is completely consistent with the intention of the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to sum up the debate on the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 and I thank all the members for their contribution. The member for Wills—who is still here—and the member for Makin spoke cogently, compellingly and relevantly on the bill. They actually went to the bill in detail. The members for Cook and Kooyong were passionate but just spoke on another bill. The member for Melbourne has raised an issue and has foreshadowed a potential change to the bill and, as indicated, I am very happy to entertain a discussion around that to see whether there needs to be any change to the bill.

I remind the House that the Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 amends the Migration Act to ensure that foreign workers in Australia's offshore resources industry are covered by the migration zone and are required to hold visas. This bill is aimed at ensuring all Australian jobs are regulated under Australian migration laws. The Federal Court's May 2012 decision in the Allseas case reduced the Migration Act's coverage of the offshore resources industry. In response, my predecessor established the Migration Maritime Taskforce within my department to examine how best to reform the Migration Act's application to the offshore resources industry.

This bill implements the task force's recommendation. The task force's work revealed that the Migration Act relies on old law to govern the offshore resources industry. The provisions governing the offshore resources industry were inserted in 1982, before the exclusive economic zone was established. Together, the Allseas decision and the out-dated Migration Act provisions represent a significant gap in Australia's ability to regulate its offshore resources industry and to regulate which foreign workers are employed on these valuable national assets.

Without this bill, the government cannot tell if foreign workers in the offshore resources industry are being underpaid or exploited. Without this bill, the government cannot tell how many foreign workers are working in Australia's offshore resources industry. Every other business in Australia needs visas for its foreign workers. Every other business in Australia needs to pay Australian wages. Most companies operating offshore are doing the right thing—just like most companies onshore do—but the Australian people expect the government to regulate jobs.

Underpayment and exploitation reduce work opportunities for Australian citizens, for permanent residents and for foreign workers who do the right thing and hold the right visa. Exploitative hiring practices also put businesses that engage workers with the right visas at a competitive disadvantage. Competitive disadvantage provides a perverse incentive to stage more development offshore to avoid the requirements of the visa system.

We cannot extend the migration zone to the whole EEZ, because international law does not allow that. Foreign ships have a right to free navigation of the high seas and they need to be able to pass through the EEZ, and we cannot require their crews to hold visas. The migration zone cannot be extended into territorial sea for the same reason: there is a right of innocent passage for foreign ships under international law. Because of international law, in most cases, the migration zone stops at the lower water mark. If you go swimming in the ocean, you have probably left it. A ship 50, 20 or even 10 metres offshore is most often not in the migration zone. Put a gas refinery on that ship, and as long as it is not attached to the seabed, none of the workers need to hold visas.

The task force recommended that whether a person is in the migration zone should depend on not only where the person is but also what that person is doing. The task force recommended that the Migration Act should comprehensively regulate the activities of the offshore resources industry. To do this, the bill will link the migration zone to schemes under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994 and other Commonwealth, state or territory laws declared in writing. If an activity needs a licence a person working on it will be in the migration zone.

This bill is only part of the package. A requirement to hold a visa is meaningless without an appropriate visa to go with it. Offshore industry is different to onshore industry. Ships arrive with a crew on board and may leave only a week later. Specialised vessels with no equivalent in Australia are needed for some work. It is a worldwide industry with a specialised worldwide workforce.

The government understands that industry need certainty and flexibility as they develop commercial contracts and run their businesses. That is why my department has begun to prepare for a comprehensive consultation with industry, unions and other stakeholders to shape a new visa pathway specifically for this offshore context. The new visa pathway will give industry the flexibility it needs while ensuring that the Australian government can regulate these Australian jobs and that Australian conditions are maintained. There will be transitional arrangements when the new requirement comes into force next year. We will work with industry to make sure that these are suitable and practical. My department will work with industry to ensure that the changeover is a smooth one. This is not anti-industry reform; it is pro-jobs reform.

I turn now to some of the points that were raised during the debate on the bill. The member for Cook claims that this bill breaches article 56(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 56(1) provides that Australia has jurisdiction with respect to the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the EEZ. Article 56(2) says that Australia must exercise this jurisdiction with 'due regard' to the rights of other nations. It is clear that article 56(1) contemplates imposing conditions on who can exploit the natural resources of Australia's EEZ, otherwise it would be meaningless. The bill is deliberately drafted so as to create a self-contained framework. New section 9A(4) provides that the amendments do not affect an act other than the Migration Act unless that other act expressly refers to the new provisions.

It has been suggested that statistics and information on the offshore workforce should be gathered before making these amendments. The government currently has no power under the Migration Act to collect this information. The bill addresses this by applying the Migration Act framework to the offshore resources industry. There is a principle at stake. All Australian businesses need to get visas for their foreign workers; the offshore resources industry is no exception.

The member for Cook raised enterprise migration agreements. This bill does not engage with enterprise migration agreements. The government will consult with industry, unions and other stakeholders on the details of a new visa pathway designed specifically for the offshore resources industry. As I have said before, the new visa pathway will provide appropriate flexibility to industry while protecting the jobs and working conditions of Australian workers.

On border management, this bill does not materially alter the situation regarding unauthorised maritime arrivals. Asylum seekers will not be covered by the new arrangements because they will not be in an area to perform an offshore resources activity. The ship itself will not be part of the migration zone. Persons performing an offshore resources activity will be taken to be in the migration zone. Nor will this bill make Australian resources installations targets for people smugglers. Asylum seekers who arrive at Australian resources installations by sea will still be unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is because asylum seekers would be taken to have entered Australia as they are on Australian resources installations. Australian resources installations are currently part of the migration zone, are deemed to be part of Australia and are excised offshore places. Unauthorised arrivals there would be subject to a visa application bar, as they are now.

In summary, I thank all the members for their contribution to the debate. Where there are skills shortages and the Australian workforce cannot provide the required labour in Australia's offshore resource activities, there will always be a need for foreign workers. However, this need should not be allowed to undermine Australian working conditions and does not justify the operation of Australian industry without oversight of Australian law, as is currently the case. These are Australian resources and Australian jobs. The resources are governed by Australian laws; the jobs should be too. I commend the bill to the House.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.