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

I rise to speak on the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Amendment Bill 2006 on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. This bill amends the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 to ensure the Commonwealth can effectively respond to threats of serious marine pollution arising from maritime incidents.

Among other matters, this bill clarifies the status and scope of the Australian government’s power of intervention in Australia’s exclusive economic zone; aligns the scope of powers available to the Australian government in the exclusive economic zone with that in the coastal sea area; extends the application of the act to all ships in the coastal area which present a significant threat of pollution; and clarifies the extent and scope of intervention powers in relation to prevention of pollution by extending powers for direction in relation to tugs, places of refuge and persons other than shipowners, masters and salvors. In addition, the bill provides that intervention directions issued by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority prevail over other directions; revises penalties for noncompliance with direction given under that act; provides for responder immunity from liability for decisions made with due care; and provides for reimbursement on just terms for the use of requisitioned property, including compensation for damage or loss occurring while property is under requisition.

These are sensible measures and they enjoy Labor’s support. What Labor does not support is the Howard government’s anti-Australian shipping policies. This anti-Australian shipping posture has a number of consequences, not least of which is the threat that flag of convenience vessels present to our marine environment. We have been fortunate that a disaster involving a flag of convenience vessel has not caused an environmental catastrophe in Australian waters. With the increasing numbers of poorly maintained flag of convenience vessels plying the Australian coastline, Labor fears it is a matter of not if but when a major marine environmental catastrophe occurs on this government’s watch.

AMSA is tasked with managing ecological disasters arising from maritime incidents. We hope that with the passage of this bill AMSA will be better equipped to undertake this task, but we are more concerned that disasters are prevented in the first place. The goal of prevention, mitigation and elimination of risks to our marine environment is not facilitated by a flag of convenience dominated coastal trade. For 10 long years the Howard government has undermined Australia’s domestic shipping industry by encouraging foreign rust buckets to ply our coast. The former Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, took the view that Australia is a nation of shippers, not a shipping nation. That view informed the Howard government’s shipping policy during Mr Anderson’s tenure as minister and it continues to inform government policy under his successor.

The Howard government has used the continuous and single voyage permit provisions of the Navigation Act to open up the Australian coast to flag of convenience vessels. Many of these ships are held together by little more than the ingenuity of their underpaid crews. These vessels fall outside Australia’s control with respect to labour conditions, ship safety, crew training, security and environmental standards. The contrived unavailability of Australian tonnage to meet domestic shipping needs has removed certainty for the domestic shipping industry and largely killed off investment in this sector. This set of circumstances would not be tolerated in any other transport sector. We would not allow a German trucking company to bring in a vehicle registered in Panama, driven by a visa-less Guatemalan, who is paid a Filipino wage, and authorise it to carry goods on the Hume Highway. So why are similar arrangements acceptable with respect to ships plying their trade on the Australian coast and entering and exiting our ports on a daily basis? Two hundred thousand foreign seamen are entering our ports at the same time. The government, unfortunately, has no answer to this question.

There have been recent glimmers of hope for the Australian shipping sector, including the commencement of coastal trade by PAN Australia Shipping. But sadly, in its very first days, this venture was undermined by the incapacity or unwillingness of the Howard government to enforce the cabotage provisions of the Navigation Act. It appears that flag of convenience vessels have been permitted to carry cargo destined for the PAN vessel Boomerang I. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has not been prepared to enforce his own cabotage guidelines. I have asked a question on notice about failings in the government’s administration of cabotage with respect to Boomerang I, but the minister has refused to answer. The minister’s attempt to avoid my questioning about this matter does not diminish his culpability for undermining Australian shipping, and it will not dissuade Labor from continuing to put the Howard government’s anti-Australian shipping policies under the spotlight.

In the 2001 election the Howard government went to the people under the slogan ‘We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come’. What most of us missed was the asterisk at the end of that slogan which exempted flag of convenience vessels from any effective control, even when these foreign ships are taking jobs from Australians and sucking the lifeblood out of our domestic shipping industry.

I have referred to the undermining of PAN Australia Shipping’s operations. It is far from the only Australian operation to suffer at the hands of this government. Earlier this week the Howard government issued a single voyage permit to a Panamanian flag of convenience vessel, Golden Yuki, to carry Australian molasses down the Australian coastline in preference to an Australian vessel operated by Stolt NYK Australia, an Australian company. Despite the availability of an Australian vessel and crew, the government authorised this foreign ship to carry domestic cargo down the Australian coast. It effectively permitted this foreign ship, crewed by Chinese seafarers, to take Australian jobs.

My advice is that the Australian-registered vessel, crewed by Australian seafarers, was perfectly capable of carrying the cargo. But, rather than require the cargo to be carried by this licensed vessel, as mandated by the coastal trade provisions of the Navigation Act, the government deemed the Australian vessel inadequate and issued a single voyage permit to the Panamanian ship. This foreign vessel commenced loading its domestic cargo yesterday, and the Australian vessel was sent on its way. Stolt NYK Australia estimates the company has lost 11 shipments to foreign vessels since June 2005, representing a loss of business totalling $1.7 million.

Sadly, the government’s treatment of Stolt NYK Australia is not out of the ordinary. The Howard government has systematically corrupted the single and continuing voyage permit system. It has corrupted it to such an extent that the issuing of permits to flag of convenience vessels is now a matter of routine, regardless of the capacity and availability of licensed vessels. It is time for this government to stop its abuse of the single and continuing voyage permit regime and give Australian shipping and Australian maritime workers a fair go.

The bill before us concerns the Commonwealth’s capacity to respond to maritime incidents that pose a threat to our marine environment. This is an important objective. It is one we support. We hope that AMSA’s capacity will be strengthened with the passage of this bill, but at the same time we demand that the Howard government abandons its contempt for Australian shipping and strengthens its commitment to preventing maritime environmental disasters, not just responding to them more effectively. Sadly, this bill, while containing some worthy measures, does not signal a change of policy on the part of the government. For that reason, I now move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add: “but the Senate condemns the Government for administering anti-Australian shipping policies that favour foreign flag of convenience vessels and put the Australian marine environment at unnecessary risk”.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O’Brien for the supportive comments he made in relation to those aspects of the legislation that he supports. The Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Amendment Bill 2006 demonstrates this government’s commitment to promoting environmentally sensitive safe shipping practices. The bill implements the regulatory elements of the national system for emergency response, updating existing legislation to align it with international maritime law and clarifying the provisions of the legislation to strengthen the regulatory framework for the national system, while ensuring compliance with the provisions of the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969.

The bill clarifies the Australian government’s powers of intervention when there is a threat of serious pollution. This is an important piece of legislation, which will contribute significantly to ensuring that our capability to protect our pristine environment from the consequences of unforeseen marine disasters remains adequate and relevant. The government has every confidence that these measures are of great benefit to the Australian public.

Senator O’Brien raised a matter in relation to the shipment of molasses. I am advised that part VI of the Navigation Act provides that a permit may be issued not only when no licensed ship is available but also when the service provided by licensed ships is not adequate. In this case the department carefully considered the information made available to it from both the permit applicant, CSR, and the licensed ship operator, Stolt NYK Australia, and reached a view that the Stolt service was inadequate for this molasses shipment within the terms of the Navigation Act. Consequently the department concluded that the issue of a permit for the carriage of this low-value by-product would be in the public interest, given its importance as a domestically sourced input to a variety of Victorian manufacturing industries. The shipment of molasses has been a point of contention between Stolt and CSR for a number of years and both sides in the dispute have made a number of representations to the department regarding the matter. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.