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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very little exports, Albo!

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

We are not talking about exports. The member talks about exports. What we are talking about here is domestic freight. That is what he does not understand and, in the short time that he will be here, I doubt whether he will ever get it, frankly.

If the salmon industry was prepared to be opened up to the same principles and allow a foreign operator to come in and set up under much lower foreign conditions—rather than Australian conditions, which ensure that we have the top-quality product that we do—not have to pay tax, because they are a foreign company, and be able to employ foreign, rather than Tasmanian, workers, who would be paid $2 an hour, next door to the successful Australian industry, guess what would happen? The Australian industry would disappear. No Australian industry could survive the principles set out in the legislation that is before the Senate. It is as simple as that.

That is why, here in Australia, we say that people should be paid Australian wage rates. That is why the legislation is opposed not just by the shipping industry but, for example, by the rail industry, including the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which produces remits to the government and is a fully government owned entity. The proposed legislation not only distorts the market by making the Australian shipping industry unable to compete; it also distorts the market by ensuring that other modes of transport are at a competitive disadvantage. The ARTC cannot pay foreign wages if goods go from Sydney to Melbourne. It does not operate under foreign regulations but must ensure safe, well-maintained trains et cetera. But, if cargo goes on the blue highway, that will be permissible under the legislation.

Bill Milby's evidence before the Senate inquiry was clear and consistent with the approach that is in the legislation. The witnesses from the department confirmed that Mr Milby was told that one of his options was to sack his Australian crew, register his vessel overseas and hire cheap foreign labour. The other option, of course, was just to go out of business. It was as simple as that. Mr Milby was told that, yet he was denigrated by the former Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that that incident had not occurred. Of course, it did; he was referred to the department by the minister when he went along to the launch of this flawed legislation.

The fact is that the legislation before us seeks to enhance security but to do so in a way which improves productivity by reducing costs. We are prepared to support this legislation because we think that it has been properly considered by the government but, at the same time, our national security interests are certainly not served by the removal of the Australian flag from around our coastline. The government speaks about stopping the boats; no-one suggested that that meant stopping the Australian flag on the back of boats around our coastline, but that is precisely what the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 would do. It is in our strong national security interest to have a strong Australian presence on our coasts to keep an eye out for suspicious activity that might not be recognised or considered important by crews that simply do not have the Australian national interest at their core. So we will work very hard in the Senate with the crossbenchers to ensure that we do not have that legislation, which I think is correctly characterised as WorkChoices on water.

It is against that background that today we have the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015, which genuinely seeks to reduce red tape costs for Australian flagged vessels, and we are supporting this legislation; we will support any practical measures that come before this parliament to do that. But if those opposite get their way and the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 passes the Senate, then this legislation will be rendered as an academic exercise because there will not be Australian ships involved in interstate or intrastate trade, and there will not be the Australian flag around our coasts—the legislation before the Senate says that very strongly.

I hope that people in the Senate actually do read the legislation, unlike people in the House, who clearly have not read the legislation that is before the Senate. It is opposed by the Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, by the people who attended the function that I was at last night, held here in Parliament House with the sector, and by the workforce and people who have knowledge of national security interests, environmental interests and economic interests. I believe that the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 will be defeated. On that basis, it is therefore important that this current legislation before the House is supported. Labor will be doing just that.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I like the member for Grayndler. He is indeed a long-serving member. It may or may not be the case that I become a long-serving member of this place, but what I will do in the time that I am given here, whatever that is, is make sure that I stand up for the interests of my home state of Tasmania. Those that are listening in the gallery and elsewhere, could be forgiven if it passed their notice with the contribution that the member for Grayndler made on this debate that the opposition is indeed supporting this Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015, which is essentially about red tape reduction. This bill is essentially about security measures that are absolutely necessary and important for international vessels that are coming into Australian ports but are less required or not at all required for those domestic intrastate and interstate voyages that are occurring. As a Tasmanian, I felt that it was appropriate for me to make a contribution to this debate.

The red tape savings from this bill are not huge, but they will amount to almost $1 million. This is further evidence that the government is absolutely committed to our transport systems, whatever they might be. With road transport, I note the record amount of funding that has been provided to programs in local councils all around Australia and the record amount of funding that has been provided by this government to programs like the Roads to Recovery Program. I say again to anybody listening that if you have pothole in your local road now is the time to be knocking on the door of your local council and telling them to fix that pothole, because never before have the councils had so much money coming from the Commonwealth government for those roads. That funding is at the discretion, absolutely, of the local councils. There is also the road black spots funding, which has been substantially increased for last year and also for this coming financial year.

With rail transport, I had the pleasure last week, along with the Minister for Infrastructure in Tasmania, the Hon. Rene Hidding, of announcing the largest tender that applied to the Tasmanian Rail Freight Revitalisation Project—a total commitment thus far of $119.8 million, of which the Commonwealth has gladly committed, I believe, half of that. So $58.9 million has been contributed by the Commonwealth to the revitalisation of the rail infrastructure within the state of Tasmania. The key points about that are: safety, reliability, making sure that those goods that rightly should on rail and not on road are able to be on rail, and making sure that those industries that depend on rail have the confidence to use that service. It was a pleasure to be at the announcement of the largest tender, which was awarded to VEC Civil Engineering, a business up on the north-west coast, for their contribution to a $38 million tender that will upgrade the Western Line and the Melba Line to deliver safety and reliability and provide the sectors that depend on rail in my state with the confidence to rely on TasRail.

Regarding aviation, I spoke yesterday on a bill related to the screening of freight that is leaving Australia by air to go to the United States. That is an obligation now that the United States has imposed on all countries that wish to export goods into the US. Again, this government has invested in infrastructure, particularly aviation infrastructure. I note in particular the $38 million that was committed to upgrade the Hobart airport and effectively put the 'international' back into the Hobart International Airport. This was primarily driven by the need to be able to move heavy equipment and to take large payloads down to the Antarctic, which is increasingly seeing Hobart's capability in this area.

We hope this will continue to be the case and will continue to grow as other countries see the absolute commitment that this government has shown, whether it be through the commitments of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development around such projects as the Hobart airport upgrade or whether it be through the Department of the Environment and Greg Hunt's very significant commitment to replace the Aurora Australis. The number is unknown, but the unveiling took place in Hobart the other day at the Antarctic Division in the presence of the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment.

It is an extraordinarily large investment. It again highlights the commitment that this country has, and the capacity that Hobart has in terms of being the hub. We are competing with other locations, be they in South America or New Zealand, and we want to see partners, whether they be Chinese partners, European partners or others, utilising the increasing facilities and capacity that Australia has in Hobart for marine and Antarctic research.

But the bill before us today relates to maritime issues. I must apologise to the member for Grayndler, because he once again digressed off the subject. For those who are listening, I must remind you that the opposition are indeed supporting the legislation before the House. But the member for Grayndler digressed onto a bill that is before the Senate at the moment and made a couple of points that I should have highlighted in my contribution in the third reading of the previous legislation. They related to perhaps the most definitive document highlighting the challenges that the island state in the island nation faces with Bass Strait, the Productivity Commission's report on Bass Strait.

It highlighted the issues as clearly as anybody. If there are any senators, particularly Tasmanian senators, who have not taken the time to read the view of Productivity Commission—an independent organisation of the highest quality academics that this country has—I can tell you that it was damning. It was absolutely damning of the changes, however well intentioned, that were made when the member for Grayndler was the responsible minister. I know this is very personal for him. I understand that and I respect that, but, frankly, the decisions that were made in 2009 and 2012 were absolutely condemned in the Productivity Commission's report into Bass Strait. It highlighted that the changes that were made hurt, understandably, the state in our country that depends most on a viable coastal shipping fleet.

I remind those listening that since 2012 the deadweight tonnage on Australian flagged vessels on Australian coastal services has fallen by 63 per cent. The Australian coastal shipping fleet is dying on the vine. This country depends so much on products such as cement, zinc, aluminium and bulk ores; we have an absolute obligation as a government to make the changes that are being proposed before the Senate.

So I call on my fellow Tasmanians, both members of the Liberal Party and others. Again, I call on Senator Whish-Wilson. I have so much time for Senator Whish-Wilson. He has so much potential. He is a pragmatic man, and I dearly hope that he is able to see the sense and the necessity of this, and the benefits and the jobs that will flow. We have already been able to see the investment that will flow by the commitment from one of the largest stevedoring companies in the world, DP World, who have said they will invest $30 million of their own money to upgrade the Port of Burnie to be able to bring in vessels that will serve, particularly, China and will reduce the costs of shipping a container from the island state in the island nation from $2,800 a container to between $1,300 and $1,400 a container. How any of the Tasmanian senators could see that as a bad thing is beyond me. They have said publicly that, initially, there will be at least 20 new jobs on the Burnie port, with this expansion, rising to 40 new jobs. My assessment would be that many of those will ultimately be members of the Maritime Union of Australia.

Again I say that I have not been malicious; I have not done anything other than acknowledge that the changes made by the previous government were well-intentioned—but they simply have not worked. It is beholden on us to see the Australian shipping fleet and the coastal trade that my state particularly depends on so much is given a chance to thrive once again. This bill will reduce red tape and will save almost $1 million in terms of compliance—not a huge amount of money, but it is important.

One of those services that are not subject to this piece of legislation is the TT-Line, which plies the Bass Strait between Devonport and the Port of Melbourne. It carries passengers from the mainland to Tasmania and vice versa. Refurbishment of the two Spirit of Tasmania ships has just been undertaken by the Tasmanian state government under the watchful eye of Minister Hidding and is very much part of the Tasmanian government's plan to grow visitation to Tasmania to 1½ million people by 2020. Industry tells us that, if we are successful in that, it will create upwards of 8,000 jobs. All the evidence suggests that they are on track to deliver that. We wholeheartedly support them in growing their passenger numbers.

It would be of interest to many here to note that in 2014-15 passenger numbers on the Spirit of Tasmania increased by eight per cent to more than 384,000, which is 16 per cent higher than was the case two years earlier. Indeed, the investment, planning, administration, oversight and commitment of the state government make the TT-Line very much part of the matrix of services that bring people to our state and move freight, particularly perishables. The member for Grayndler talked about salmon, which I suspect is an area that he does not know very much about, although I am sure he enjoys Tasmanian salmon. He would be very interested to know that perishables, such as lettuces from Houston's Farm in the south of my electorate and in the member for Franklin's electorate, very much depend on the reliability of the overnight service that runs between Tasmania and Melbourne to get product to the markets on the mainland in as good a condition as possible.

It is also encouraging to see that bookings on the TT-Line for the first quarter of this financial year are up nearly 16 per cent, and through the summer period, the peak period, they are increasing by another 17 per cent. It is a very important service for the state of Tasmania. With the good work of the state government, supported by the Commonwealth, passenger numbers are up, freight volume is up, the business of the TT-Line is improving financially, the visitor spend in Tasmania is up—and that is very important for jobs—and fare prices are decreasing.

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

I thank members who have contributed to this relatively short debate on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015. As the member for Lyons just said, the bill is supported by both sides of parliament, as it should be. Again, the debate deteriorated into discussions about legislation which will go before the upper house later today. I will not go through a rebuttal of the comments of the shadow minister, but I acknowledge that the member who just spoke provided that rebuttal brilliantly, particularly, from a Tasmanian focus, recognising just how important it is for us to have shipping reform in this country if indeed our shipping industry is to survive.

Tasmania is one of the many states that will benefit from the positive elements of this particular legislation, reducing some of the red tape associated interstate voyages. The Australian government is committed to fostering Australia's economic prosperity through effective transport security regulation to deliver a safe, secure and efficient maritime transport system. The amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 support the government's efforts to boost productivity by reducing red tape that does not provide any security benefit.

A joint industry Australian government review confirmed that there is no ongoing benefit to security in regulating Australian ships used solely on interstate voyages, except for passenger and vehicle ferries. This bill will remove Australian regulated ships that are used exclusively for interstate voyages from the marine transport security framework established by the act. Separate amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 are proposed in order to continue security regulation of interstate passenger and vehicle ferries under a proportionate framework commensurate with their risk. There is no impact on our international maritime obligations resulting from this amendment. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, on which our legislation is based, does not require security regulation of ships on domestic voyages. This amendment will result in cost savings to a significant proportion of the security regulated shipping sector, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.