Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move

That this House notes that:

(1) this Parliament condemns the exploitation of workers and communities by unscrupulous shipping and port operators;

(2) exploitive deals with unscrupulous dictatorships are not acceptable;

(3) contracts with unscrupulous dictatorships and dictators will not stand in the international shipping community; and

(4) companies that are linked to harsh dictatorships, responsible for the suppression of democracy, are not welcome in the Australian shipping industry, and that:

(a) such companies negotiating contracts with dictatorships are on notice; and

(b) exploitative industrial behaviour will not be tolerated on our shores.

I rise to speak on my motion about one of the darkest and most disturbing parts of the shipping and transport industries—namely, port operators who operate below the radar, making deals with unscrupulous individuals, putting lives at risk and undermining the viability and sovereignty of Australia's shipping industry and port operation. One such company has expanded its operations to over 29 ports in 18 countries across the world, including right here in Australia. I'm not talking about countries that play by international rules and the norms that we're accustomed to. I'm talking about some of the most dangerous and hostile countries, led by dictators, by people who have been accused of genocide, of war crimes and of crimes against humanity, sometimes working hand in hand with these very people who have a finger in most of the companies that set up in their nations. We have a situation where port companies and port operators that do deals with these companies want to do business in Australia. In fact, one such company has its operations in the Port of Melbourne. If you have a company that does deals with despots, dictators and tyrants, who don't respect democracy and human rights, what kinds of working conditions do you think its employees are going to be working under in Australia and in other countries? Quite often, workers find themselves facing conditions that include harassment and coercion. Are we surprised when we know that the company is doing deals with some of the most dangerous dictators around the world?

Today in Australia we have a government that turns a blind eye to companies that earn a buck while exploiting workers. On top of this, workers' fundamental rights to associate freely, to join unions and to bargain collectively have been suppressed. We have examples of workers facing harassment and bullying in the workplace, and this is unacceptable. One might ask, 'Why doesn't the workforce just report this?' Victoria International Container Terminal conducted an independent survey that found that 75 to 80 per cent of people were unhappy with the management of one of these unscrupulous companies doing business right here in Australia while at the same time doing business with some of the most dangerous despots around the world. Workers overwhelmingly said that management was untrustworthy. One worker was quoted as saying, 'How can a survey go so bad and nothing happen?' How can it? Nothing was done.

Let's go back a little bit. According to a report from the International Transport Workers' Federation, the chairman and president of one of the offending companies dealing with these horrendous countries that are void of democratic governance, when asked why his company deals with countries such as Syria, Sudan, the Congo and many others, said:

I'm very bullish about Iran, Congo and Cambodia. We're taking a very long-term view. We've learned from past experience. It's okay to say that if you make investments in bad places, right now, over time, you'll gain without competition.

Let's analyse that. What does that mean? It means that, if you go into a country that doesn't respect democracy and human rights, you're doing business hand in hand with some of these despots and dictators. We need to be very careful with these companies when they come here to Australia to do business. We don't want a race to the bottom when it comes to working conditions and wages. We want safe workplaces. We want workers treated fairly here in Australia but also in some of these Third World countries where there've been all sorts of allegations about the way they treat their workers.

We've seen similar degradation in the shipping industry, more generally than I mentioned before—for example, with foreign flags that take over vessels in order to sack the Australian workers and to exploit workers. I, for one, can't stand by and watch workers screwed while shipping and port operators walk away with huge profits, not just here but in countries that have no human rights and where human rights are not respected and neither is democracy. We could easily turn a blind eye to this and a blind eye to companies that are like this. We could say: 'It's happening overseas. That's how they do business over there.' But these are companies that are breaking human rights laws and international laws and are seeking to do business here. One of them is already here in Melbourne. I personally can't stand by, and none of us should stand by and just watch this. We have international obligations, and we need to make sure people are safe. This isn't just happening overseas. It's happening here as well.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. I'm pleased that the member for Hindmarsh has moved this motion. It's an important topic. The exploitation of workers in communities around the world by unscrupulous shipping and port operators should be condemned by this parliament. I have a long background in connection with the shipping and waterside workers in the industry from my time 20 years ago representing the suburb of Port Melbourne on Port Phillip council, which is the home of Australia's maritime industry, with a long and proud history for over a century. Through that I came to know and appreciate the dedication and professionalism of generations of waterside workers in the MUA, the old painters and dockers, and the marine and power engineers more recently.

It's no understatement to say that the destruction of the Australian shipping industry by the Liberal Party is deliberate and calculated—which is a much broader debate. Suffice it to say the government have, in their courage and wisdom, fielded no speakers on this motion! A recent report released by the International Transport Workers' Federation into the operations of one such company should appal any reader. I went to the launch of the report, I read it and I was moved to speak on the motion.

The International Container Terminal Services company, a name which is surely designed to be forgotten, is renowned throughout the maritime industry as a company that exploits its workers and local communities. It preferences company profits over worker safety and fundamental rights. It uses harassment and coercion to manage its workforce. It pays poverty wages and underpays its employees, who are often overworked. It uses violence and intimidation to stamp out union activity and profits from partnerships with corrupt regimes implicated in crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. This company operates 29 ports across 18 countries and looks set to continue to expand its exploitative antiworker business model across the world. It holds contracts with some of the world's most brutal regimes and has only ended contracts with them when it became commercially unrealistic to continue operations.

Shockingly, this company now operates right here in Australia, care of the Liberal Party. In 2014 the then Victorian Liberal government awarded it a major contract to operate the Port of Melbourne's third container terminal. Dockworkers in Australia report that its local subsidiary has brought its antiworker mentality to Australia. It often attempts to override safety measures in order to achieve productivity targets. Trained safety representatives are not respected, with frequent attempts by management to override safety instructions. There are also reports that workers in Australia have been targeted by this local subsidiary for union activity, and they're now too scared to talk for fear of being fired. They're being intimidated by their employer.

Globally, as the member for Hindmarsh said, this company has close relationships with some of the worst regimes for human rights abuse. For instance, it entered a joint venture with a Democratic Republic of the Congo state owned enterprise under the direct control of the President. The DRC is one of the world's worst kleptocracies and is increasingly being sanctioned by the international community for its use of state sanctioned sexual violence. This company says, 'Let's be friends.' It also partnered with the Assad regime in Syria up until December 2012, well into the country's civil war, which has now seen over half a million people killed and over 5.6 million people flee. It also operates a port out of Honduras. Following the granting of the contract to ICTSI, an intense campaign of worker repression began, including attempts on the life of Mr Victor Crespo, the general secretary of the trade union. Family members of Mr Crespo died in related attacks, and the Honduran military was deployed at the port to quash union activity following job losses. This is the type of business this company practises. I could go on.

In short, it is a global corporate extremist. Its own chairman summed it up, as was stated by the member for Hindmarsh. He said:

I'm very bullish about Iran, Congo and Cambodia. We're taking a very long-term view. We've learned from past experience. It's okay to say that if you make investments in bad places right now, over time, you'll gain without competition.

What a business philosophy! To be clear, it also operates in Sudan. The US labelled the Sudanese government a state sponsor of terrorism. At the time the Liberal government in Victoria signed a contract with this company to come into Australia and run the Port of Melbourne's terminal, the President of Sudan was wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. They still have two warrants for his arrest. If the Victorian Liberals knew all this at the time, why did they contract with the company? If they didn't know, how is it they didn't know, and what went wrong?

Now we hear that this company is going to be seeking deals in other Australian ports. I say to any state and territory government who may be even thinking about awarding contracts to this company: think again. Just say no. Don't do it. This is not a company that Australian governments should be contracting with. Its human rights record and its antiworker attitude speak for themselves. (Time expired)

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing this motion to this chamber. As a member representing an island state, I know that a reliable shipping service and maritime industry is absolutely crucial. Over 99 per cent of Tasmania's freight volume is moved by sea—12.5 million tonnes through the main ports and another 2.4 million tonnes out of Port Latta. Tasmania is also serviced by three Australian owned and crewed shipping companies—Toll, Searoad and TT-Line. Our stevedoring companies, which are critical in the supply chain, also play a pivotal role.

At sea and onshore, it is important that the workforce, customers and community are not manipulated for commercial gain. I am pleased our maritime operations do the right thing. I wish I could say the same about the foreign shipping companies that visit Tasmania. As recently as July this year, a foreign flagged ship, the Xing Ning Hai, was detained in Devonport over the nonpayment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to its Chinese crew—$338,400, to be precise. Unfortunately, this is commonplace, and all too regularly we see examples just like that.

Sadly, in Australia our ocean workers are being manipulated, as evidenced by the events in Devonport in July, but this exploitation is commonplace in international ports. One company responsible for this exploitation is the Philippines based global port operator International Container Terminal Services Inc., or ICTSI. It has gained a foothold in Australia at Webb Dock in Melbourne, thanks to the former Victorian Liberal government's granting ICTSI's subsidiary VICT a contract.

A report last month by the International Transport Workers' Federation raises a number of serious questions that this parliament should be addressing, and it's disturbing that there is not one government member speaking on this motion. The report found that ICTSI operate in some of the poorest and most exploited nations in the world. They use their Australian operation to somehow demonstrate they are a legitimate operation. But, when you operate in Sudan, Syria and Congo, that cannot be the case. The report found ICTSI's workers are underpaid and overworked, and are harassed and coerced. Workers face violence and intimidation in retaliation for raising workplace issues. The report also found that ICTSI proudly proclaims that its presence in developing nations with questionable regimes is good for business. The ITF report contains a quote from Enrique K Razon, Chairman and President of ICTSI, which I shall now read into Hansard:

Africa is a very good place for us. There is very little competition and they need the investment badly … Returns are best there with high yields in the handling business. To handle a box in our terminal in Yantai, [China], we charge about $45-$50. The same container in Africa easily goes for $200-$250.

Who ultimately pays for this? It is the people, which is just unacceptable. Fortunately, ICTSI has not set foot in Tasmania. However, with former state Liberal governments in Victoria awarding them a contract, we need to be vigilant that the Tasmanian state Liberal government does not do the same. What we need is a set of principles that foreign owned companies who want to operate in Australia must adhere to.

While I am very confident the community would not tolerate the sort of exploitative practices we have seen from ICTSI in Third World countries, I believe governments in developed nations like Australia should play a number of roles. Firstly, we should not allow companies to legitimise their international operations by operating in Australia with such a record while at the same time exploiting some of the poorest people in the world. Secondly, our political leadership should be doing everything they can at an international level to put pressure on companies like ICTSI to change the way they operate. Thirdly, there should be a full and proper investigation as to how a company with such practices was allowed to gain a foothold in Australia.

By any reasonable standard, the exploitation of developing nations and their people is abhorrent. It is intolerable. I commend ITF and the member for Hindmarsh for bringing this issue to the attention of the parliament. It is shameful that members of the government are not speaking on this important motion.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad for the opportunity to speak on this motion, and I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing it forward for our debate and consideration. I acknowledge the contributions of all members. The member for Hindmarsh raises a very important issue. You wouldn't like to think that in Australia today you could have a company or companies operating in our ports, or anywhere else for that matter, with a track record of labour rights violations and safety standards breaches, not to mention other kinds of exploitative behaviour.

This week in the parliament we'll debate the modern slavery legislation, which looks to combat the scourge of employers—if you can call them that—who prey on vulnerable people and subject women, men and sometimes even children to work practices and conditions that are characterised by coercion, danger, wage theft and abuse. You wouldn't like to think that any company with a record of such conduct would get a foothold here in Australia, and you would think that, in an island nation like ours, where shipping is our lifeline and where port efficiency and safety are critical to our wellbeing, we would be particularly wary and watchful of such conduct in areas like stevedoring and shipping.

Yet, as the member for Hindmarsh and other members contributing to the debate have outlined, concerns have been raised about the Victoria International Container Terminal company, an offshoot of International Container Terminal Services Inc., which, since 2014, has operated at Melbourne's Webb Dock. The parent company, ICTSI, seems to concentrate its operations in countries that suffer from and struggle under authoritarian regimes, apparently seeing in these circumstances the opportunity to profit from the lack of regulation and systemic integrity. There have been reports of ICTSI port operations in countries like Nigeria, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Honduras and Syria, among others, that include worrying examples of conduct that is not consistent with basic workers' rights or with international efforts to sanction oppressive autocratic regimes.

A Victorian offshoot of ICTSI has now been established, and it may be the company intends to expand operations at other ports. I note that the terminal licences in Fremantle are currently out for tender and under negotiation for renewal. It may be that ICTSI in some form or other is interested in those licences, just as it was interested in the Melbourne operations. That would be a concern, based on what appears to be the record of this company in other countries. All of the opposition member contributors to the debate—and we're the only contributing members in this debate—have essentially argued from a simple principle: there is no place in the world for companies that undermine or attack workers' rights. They are fundamental human rights, and Australia should be active and uncompromising in protecting those rights in our country and advancing the protection of those rights elsewhere.

That's why the larger issue here is about having the right filters in place. We should be able to, and we must, screen out operators with a track record of seriously bad conduct. I'm glad that Labor is prepared to consider a regulatory framework at the national level to ensure that companies with a history of involvement in illegality or corruption are blocked from access to Australian government procurement processes or other contractual arrangements. Without such a framework, which is commonly known as a debarment policy, there will always be the potential for companies with a track record of unacceptable and illegal conduct to bring their dodgy practices to Australia or to run away from their responsibilities and failures elsewhere.

When the OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions reported on Australia's business fraud and anticorruption integrity protections operations back in 2015, it was the lack of a transparent and government-wide debarment framework that was noted as a persistent shortcoming and something that should be addressed. The imperative to put this in place is probably sharpest in relation to critical infrastructure, and there is no better example than our ports. They are literally the gateway into and out of Australia for the vast bulk of our material engagement with the world. As I've noted before, the government decided to walk away from Labor's work on the National Ports Strategy, just as they have walked away from Australian shipping and Australian seafarers. Both these forms of neglect put us at serious risk. They present an economic risk, of course, because bad practice in our freight network places a layer of cost and inefficiency over everything. But the risk goes further than that. The absence of a careful and supportive ports and shipping strategy also puts our sovereign self-sufficiency in jeopardy. It means we're not in control of the import and export gateways that are essential to our social and economic wellbeing.

In conclusion, I support this motion. Really, it should be a pretty cut and dried approach in this area. Companies that have a record of exploiting workers and breaching human rights standards and companies that work hand in hand with oppressive regimes and, indeed, seek out those opportunities because they mean less scrutiny and more profit should not be able to waltz into Australia and set up shop here.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.