Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, welcome back for the new year. It will be an interesting one, I am sure. I want to address the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 [2006], which makes disparate amendments to four maritime acts. I want to highlight some of the amendments and comment on how this bill addresses, or more accurately fails to address, deficiencies in the Howard government’s stewardship of Australian maritime policy.

Firstly, the bill amends the Lighthouses Act 1911 to provide for maintenance of maritime navigational aids and higher penalties for damaging aids or failing to report such damage. Labor generally welcomes these amendments.

The bill makes a significant number of amendments to the Navigation Act 1912, which is the principal Commonwealth act relating to the safety of ships. Among other matters, these amendments revise pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified by regulation, revise provisions relating to the reporting of ship movements, revise provisions relating to alcohol and other drugs and allowing for the taking of mouth swabs to test for alcohol and other drugs, provide immunity from civil claims for pilots and pilotage providers, remove the requirement for six months notice before the minister can cancel a continuing voyage permit and increase penalties for major offences that pose a threat to life or the environment.

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

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

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

On 18 July last year, the Australian newspaper revealed details of an internal audit of the Howard government’s administration of coastal shipping under the Navigation Act. The audit of the administration was obtained under freedom of information laws by the newspaper’s freedom of information editor, Mr Michael McKinnon. The report is one of many documents obtained by the Australian despite fierce resistance from the Howard government. I have had some experience with the Howard government’s approach to freedom of information. Let me tell the Senate that, as far as the government is concerned, all the public are entitled to expect is freedom from information, and even then they should think themselves lucky. It is little surprise that the government resisted the release of this particular audit report.

This compliance review of coastal shipping permits was conducted by KPMG for the Department of Transport and Regional Services. It was completed in October 2004. It delivered a damning assessment of the government’s performance, finding that the administration of coastal shipping licences and permits for foreign vessels is a shambles. The audit revealed that one in six coastal shipping permits is granted without a signed application form, which according to KPMG means:

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

The audit revealed: that inadequate financial controls mean that the government may be unaware of fraud, errors or other irregularities related to the licence and permit applications; that poor record keeping means data relating to more than one in five approved licence and permit applications is ‘absent or incorrect’; and that existing regulations are, in KPMG’s words, ‘out of date’ and ‘do not reflect current operating procedures’.

As if that was not enough, the report also found that the Department of Transport and Regional Services has breached the Navigation (Coasting Trade) Regulations 1937 and ministerial guidelines on the regulation of coastal shipping by failing to establish if a licensed ship is available before issuing a permit. Single and continuous voyage permits are only supposed to be issued when a licensed ship is unavailable and the minister for transport is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. Unlicensed foreign ships granted single or continuous voyage permits are not required to pay their crew Australian wages when trading on the Australian coast—that is, foreign ships, many of them flag of convenience vessels, can undercut Australian wages and conditions when plying their trade on the Australian coast. And the Howard government has presided over the near destruction of the Australian coastal trading fleet while giving a leg-up to foreign shipping that uses substandard vessels and engages cheap foreign labour.

According to documents attributed to a spokesperson for the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Truss, the government has addressed the deficiencies identified in the audit report. It took the release of the report under freedom of information for Mr Truss to publicly acknowledge the shambolic state of coastal shipping administration. The department expanded on Mr Truss’s concession in the form of an answer to a question on notice from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. The committee was told:

The recommendations have been addressed through changes in procedures for processing permits and licences, changes in records management practices and as part of a broader rewrite of the Coasting Trade Regulations. These amendments are close to finalisation.

We have not seen those rewritten regulations yet. But Mr Truss’s comments at the AusIntermodal 2005 conference in Sydney last year foreshadow a rewrite that has little relationship with the recommendations of the KPMG audit. You will not find Mr Truss’s remarks on his ministerial website, I might say, but a Lloyd’s List report published on 25 July reveals that Mr Truss believes that too much regulation exists in relation to coastal shipping. On the face of it, Mr Truss’s solution to his department’s administrative failings is the abolition of the few rules that regulate coastal trading activity—that is, Mr Truss cannot be sure he has got the capacity to enforce the rules, including his own ministerial guidelines, so he is thinking about getting rid of them altogether.

It is important to understand why the government’s failure to properly administer the cabotage system matters. First, it is clear from the findings of the audit that the lax administration of foreign ships on the Australian coastal trade places Australia at a heightened risk of maritime terrorists. The Department of Transport and Regional Services has been issuing permits in response to unsigned applications which, in the restrained words of the audit report, means it has risked granting a permit based on a ‘bogus or unauthorised application’.

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

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

There is no more effective veil of anonymity than a blank application form. In fact, I can hardly think of a way to make Australia more vulnerable to terrorist attack than by permitting foreign ships to sail from port to port without the inconvenience of lodging a signed permit form. It may come as a surprise to the minister for transport that foreign ships authorised by his government to trade on our coast carry things more explosive than navy beans; they carry things such as oil, chemicals, LPG and other goods, including ammonium nitrate.

The latest Australian maritime transport compendium commissioned by the Australian Shipowners Association contains a telling statistical tale about the growing use of foreign ships to transport goods around Australian ports. It reveals that since 1991-92 the number of permits issued to foreign ships has grown by over 325 per cent. In 2003-04, the last full year subject to the report, foreign vessels were permitted to carry 27.5 per cent of the Australian interstate and intrastate sea freight trade—up from eight per cent when Labor last held office. Foreign seafarers are not subject to the same rules that apply to Australian seafarers serving on Australian ships. Not only are foreign seafarers denied Australian pay and working conditions; they are not subject to the same security regime as Australian seafarers.

The soon to be implemented maritime security identification card regime does not impose additional requirements on foreign seafarers. Under the delayed maritime security identification card regime, truck drivers delivering goods to our ports will be subject to much more stringent background and identity checking than foreign seafarers.

Labor says the carriage of high-consequence dangerous goods like ammonium nitrate by foreign ships must stop now if Australia is serious about minimising the threat of terrorism. It should be clear to everyone that the safest way to transport high-consequence dangerous goods around Australia is on Australian ships crewed by Australian men and women subject to appropriate security screening. Secure ships and secure seafarers mean better protection for the Australian community. It is bad enough that the Howard government has facilitated an explosion in the number of continuous voyage permits issued for foreign ships. It is worse that the government is leaving Australia vulnerable because it will not or cannot regulate coastal trade according to the rules.

It is not just a matter of supporting Australian shippers and Australian maritime workers and it is not just a matter of keeping dangerous substances like ammonium nitrate out of the hands of terrorists; the increasing carriage of sea freight around our coast by foreign ships, many of them flag of convenience vessels subject to minimal regulation, puts our natural environment at risk. It is a matter of good luck, not good governance, that Australia has not seen a major environmental disaster associated with the carriage of chemical or petroleum products by one of the ships of shame. The Howard government’s neglect of shipping policy threatens our economy, it threatens our national security and it threatens our natural environment. It is time the Howard government ceased abusing the cabotage system. It should be enforcing the rules, not talking about walking away from them altogether.

There are other things the government should do to secure our maritime borders. The first concerns the enforcement of crew and manifest advance reporting. The government has a 48-hour rule in place—meaning that the manifest and the crew should be notified 48 hours before the vessel docks in Australian ports—but it does not adequately enforce that rule. Ships are turning up alongside wharves that have not lodged their crew and manifest details—in other words, no part of the 48-hour rule is being enforced. It is past time that this rule was enforced.

Labor calls on Mr Truss to do more than his predecessor, Mr Anderson, and fix the known deficiencies in maritime security. He could do worse than start by reading the report of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute entitled Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security. This report was arrogantly dismissed by Mr Anderson, but Mr Truss has an opportunity to do better. He needs to do better because, as noted by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

A terrorist attack on Australia’s maritime interests is a credible scenario. We have high dependence on shipping and seaborne trade, and are adjacent to a region where terrorist groups have maritime capabilities.

In light of this, it is a shame that an attack on cabotage was among Mr Truss’s first comments on the transport portfolio. It was not a good start by Mr Truss and, unfortunately, his performance has not improved.

I conclude by starting the debate for this year by moving a second reading amendment standing in my name. I urge the Senate to give it support. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

“but the Senate condemns the Government for:

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

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

             (c)    failing to ensure ships comply with the requirement to provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival”.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 [2006]. Normally, this would involve a fairly unnotable series of processes that every good government would move to enact. We have consulted widely through a whole range of processes with the national bodies: AMSA, the AMSA Advisory Board, the National Maritime Safety Council and a whole range of other bodies. As a result of that, we have moved amendments, as the member opposite identified, to the Lighthouses Act 1911 and the Navigation Act 1912. These acts are regularly revised—certainly, by this government—and they have been looked at before. It is interesting to note that on previous occasions those opposite have taken the opportunity to attempt to debunk issues that are associated only in the vaguest possible way with what I think are some very credible pieces of legislation.

We are making changes in, I think, some pretty significant areas. Obviously, the Navigation Act of 1912, which is a principal Commonwealth act, provides very sensible exemptions to operations like the military. We would have seen in recent events, both in our humanitarian aid and in providing transportation for troops, that the military have to not only own but lease vessels and ensure that those vessels have an exemption. The special survey requirements and standards—very rigorous standards, I might add—provided by military organisations should stand. It is a very sensible amendment to the Navigation Act.

We also have to amend the act in a way that ensures that the survey reports issued by classification societies are now authorised by AMSA. This reflects the greater movement in shipping around the world and the great work that this government has done in ensuring that Australia is exposed as a tourist destination. I have to commend the leader of the National Party, Senator Boswell, for the wonderful work he has done in your home state of Queensland, Senator O’Brien, with regard to superyachts. They operate under a class system which ensures that, once again, the government allows the seamless transfers of men and shipping around the country, because we are about looking after the economy.

I note, Senator O’Brien, that you seemed fairly fixated on single voyage permits.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continuously.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. If you are into this particular area, you would be well aware that it is under constant review. You are probably not aware, Senator, but effectively those opposite in this place have prevented the implementation of what is widely known in the industry as the 500-tonne rule. If those opposite decided to play the game on single voyage permits, particularly for domestic operators who were forced by your reluctance to accept some principal changes to this act like the 500-tonne rule, we would all be a lot better off.

You said the single voyage permit is somehow used to take jobs away from Australian workers. I have listened to a lot of rhetoric from the MUA over the years. You paint a picture of these ships that come over here as being substandard. Let me tell you: first of all, they come here on a SOLAS voyage. They have to meet MARPOL regulations. They are inspected by AMSA. It is easy to paint a picture of the rust bucket, things falling apart.

Let me tell you, Senator O’Brien, it is misleading to stand in this place and say, ‘We’re allowing these flag of convenience vessels. They’re going to sink here. They’re a risk to shipping.’ You need to be very careful about saying that because we are supposed to be educating the public about what we are doing in this place. You have to be very careful about those sorts of things, remembering that these are not flag of convenience vessels; these are vessels that are unlicensed in Australia. The implications that they are unregulated and unsafe are unsustainable.

Why do we use these vessels? We use these vessels principally, as you pointed out, Senator O’Brien, when a licensed Australian vessel is unavailable for that voyage. You will say, ‘Oh no, they’re available.’ But there is an implication regarding time. And what you did not say about the audit—and I understand that the audit was done at a time when there was a transfer to the transport office—is that the recommendations were acted on very quickly. And that is why we do audits. This government says, ‘We need to be transparent.’ It says, ‘We will not just say that we know what we are doing. We will give it to another organisation, we will take some recommendations and we will act on them.’ We acted on them quickly, because that is what this government is about—providing good government and ensuring that essential transportation processes are covered effectively by regulation to ensure that continued free trade, which is an essential part of keeping the economy going, is maintained.

It is not maintained in the way that Senator O’Brien has suggested—that we just let this sort of stuff fly through and that we have boats all over the place. Senator O’Brien, I suspect I have spent an awful lot more time at sea than you. I pass these vessels with quite some degree of safety and I can assure you that I am not concerned about things like being bumped by a ship in the middle of the night. If we look at history over the last 10 years—that is right, Senator, over the time this government has been in power—we find that one of the most notable events was that of the Sea Star. Whilst it is not covered in the amendments in the legislation being debated, immediately after that happened we went out and fixed it. And we continue to do that.

The whole presentation you made here today, Senator, on what I think is pretty uncontroversial legislation was pretty tragic. It is tragic because it misleads people. We are talking about maritime security; suddenly we are talking about terrorist threats and this country not taking them seriously. It is a pathetic misrepresentation of the facts. This country continues to assess terrorist threats. We are talking about precursors to explosives. In another life I was an explosives expert and I can tell you now, Senator, that ammonium nitrate in bulk is not used for explosives. It is actually used to grow things. I would have thought that you might have learnt about that in your previous shadow portfolio. People in Australia depend on ammonium nitrate to arrive in a timely fashion. If there is a gap in the transportation system and it cannot arrive, jobs and industry are not created and agriculture does not continue. In that event we need to act quickly, which we have done. We need to provide to the minister some flexibility to ensure that the minister can continue to provide some sort of licensing regime that comes under the scrutiny of AMSA.

AMSA is seen by the International Maritime Organisation to have the leading role regarding such legislation, particularly regarding the flexibility of the legislation, in that it continues to allow trade and ensures that the country, which I am very proud to say is Australia, is completely free of terrorist threats. On any complete assessment we are leading the world, Senator, in ensuring that we have maritime border security. If anybody questions that, perhaps they should saunter down to a wharf, because any movement around the seafront today would indicate immediately that there has been substantial change. Wherever you go on the waterfront now—thanks to this government’s hard work, continuous review and continuous introspection about getting it right—you will find substantive changes made over the last two years. They have accelerated and, now, if you are around the wharf, as you have indicated you have been, Senator O’Brien, you will see there are processes in place to identify exactly who you are and what you are doing. The implication that we allow ships in with people on them who we do not know, that we just let them in on boats that we have absolutely no control over, is an absolute furphy and is misleading.

In summing up, the senator opposite said that this is an issue of national security. As I have indicated, the amendments to both the Lighthouses Act and the Navigation Act are quite simple. They are not difficult concepts to grasp. It seems that those opposite have started off the year with a bit of a roar. This is the big issue: we have amendments to the Lighthouses Act which are ensuring that the penalties go up for stealing food out of the tin at the bottom of a lighthouse, so that when someone goes there who is in trouble, they can have a drink and a bit to eat while they wait to be rescued. That is serious stuff. But no—it is terrorism! It is not in the national interest to ensure we provide flexibility and a legislative framework so that essential items for our farmers and our industry right across this country are provided in a timely fashion.

With our wonderful economy, I know why you look sad, Senator O’Brien. It is because with such an economy and with a government that has its finger on the pulse, it must be pretty tragic sitting over there. But I think it is pretty sad when you come into this place and show your frustration in this manner. This is a place in which there are people listening. They want to be educated. They want a few facts on the plate. He says, ‘Jobs are at risk.’ Without these legislative changes, of course they will be at risk because they would be under the original system in which agricultural industries in this country were at the mercy of the MUA and other unions. Now we have a process whereby they have woken up to themselves around the waterfront. We have had waterfront reforms and now we are doing well and the economy is booming. So do not talk to me, Senator O’Brien, about this being about jobs.

The last thing I would like to ask is: did you hear Senator O’Brien talking about the environment? We have substantive legislative changes that involve the identification of a threat at sea. It is not only about a damaged ship; it may be a ship, for example, that has come from a port that we suspect has black-striped mussels. The changes now give us the capacity to act in our national interests to ensure that we can detain that ship, to ensure that it leaves and to ensure that it does not leave some little present behind that we do not want. This is significant. It is sad that you did not bring that up and share it with the parliament today, Senator O’Brien.

This is not a particularly controversial piece of legislation. We are not proposing any particularly radical changes. We are just tightening up shipping safety and pollution prevention regimes. I would hope that those on the other side who have seen this as an opportunity to effectively mislead Australia about what we are really doing would see fit to support this legislation. It is really important legislation in a whole range of ways. But most substantially, it allows for continued transportation in a system that effectively continues the mantra of the Australian government—seamless transfers of ships and men around Australia. It allows us to have a transportation system that ensures that those people who rely on it can get up every day and not have to worry about the ship not being there to transport their agricultural product or whatever other products they might be carrying. At the end of the day, those on the other side should support this legislation. I hope they do. I certainly hope that their performance in regard to non-controversial legislation in this place improves.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion, listening to your speech my first thought was, ‘What a courageous senator Senator O’Brien is to come into the chamber and debate someone like you, who clearly has such an in-depth knowledge of the bill and such life experience.’ As you mentioned, probably no-one on this side of the parliament has been to sea more than you. We learnt about your views on explosives, with which you mentioned some experience. As your excellent speech went on—Senator O’Brien, I did not think I would ever have to say this in the chamber—I thought, ‘Senator O’Brien has shown some courage in standing up and trying to debate Senator Scullion on these issues.’ It was more than a TKO, in a metaphorical sense. I think that all of us have learnt a lot from Senator Scullion, and the Senate is indebted to him for the excellent contribution that he has made.

I will make a few brief comments. My understanding is that the Labor Party will be supporting the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 [2006]. Some people may not have appreciated that from listening to the debate, but my understanding is that the Labor Party will be supporting the bill as it stands. In recent years, industry and other stakeholders have pressed for changes in a number of areas of shipping regulation to address what they see as outdated safety and environmental protection legislation. I think it is true to say that this bill addresses those concerns. In amending four acts, the bill will strengthen the legislative regime surrounding shipping safety and maritime environment protection and will modernise and enhance penalties for safety and environmental offences.

A number of amendments were specifically referred to in the second reading speech and during the debate on the bill. The only amendments which I will mention now are the new subsections 386A(2) and (3) to be inserted into the Navigation Act. These subsections set out offences analogous to dangerous driving offences. There will be an offence under the new subsections only under exceptional circumstances. Such an offence will occur if a seafarer is under the influence of alcohol or another drug, is in breach of his or her duty or operates a ship in a dangerous manner and as a result there is actual or likely death or injury to a person or damage to a ship. There are graduated maximum offences depending on the consequences of the action, with the highest offence applying where a person dies.

In proposing these amendments the government wishes to reassure all concerned that there is no intention that there be criminalisation of seafarers’ actions such as has happened in some other countries where, I am advised, on a number of occasions crew members have been arrested and held in prison following incidents which have resulted in accidental pollution. In the government’s view it is not appropriate that seafarers be held in prison in such circumstances, and this government does not support actions where seafarers are treated unfairly. The bill continues this government’s efforts to update the legislation which governs shipping. I commend the bill to the Senate and hope that it can have a speedy passage, because my understanding is that it has very widespread support.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.