Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2014. All of us in this place should do what we can to avoid overregulation. It reduces productivity and it hurts jobs growth. Labor has a proud record in government of doing this. It was the Labor government that delivered a single national system of laws governing the maritime sector. This was the biggest maritime reform in a century. It eliminated duplication of laws and reduced complexity.

Through the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, Labor delivered an ambitious reform agenda. In infrastructure and transport, Labor put in place a national maritime regulator, a national heavy vehicle regulator and a national rail regulator. These three national agencies replaced 23 separate state and territory regulators. Labor's changes are expected to save business $30 billion over the next two decades.

The bill before us today follows Labor's reforms and retains the spirit of the national laws. It contains simple amendments to clarify aspects of the legislation based on the experience of its operation. The opposition will be supporting these amendments. They will allow the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to exercise discretion when considering the suspension, revocation or variation of vessel certificates. The bill also includes minor changes relating to the definition of 'defence vessels', clarifies the regulator's functions and allows for subdelegation of powers in some circumstances.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this issue today, because it gives me the opportunity to raise some concerns about the government's fascination with red-tape reduction. Some regulations are important for ensuring the health, safety and welfare of working people all over this country. As we have recently gone through a period of privatisation in the areas of gas, electricity and water, there is a need for regulatory compliance so that the market is not just allowed to let rip in areas where workers need some protection

These are some of the concerns I have with the government's rhetoric on red tape reduction, because red-tape reduction goes to regulation and, in many cases, regulation goes to good governance. As Professor Stephen Duckett, Health Program Director at the Grattan Institute, said:

One person's red tape is another person's legitimate protection.

This is especially the case in the maritime industry. We have seen in the maritime industry, on the docks and the wharfs of this country over many years, a lack of regulation, a lack of so-called red tape, a lack of protection for working people in this country. My concern is that the slogans that the coalition comes up with about reducing red tape could leave many Australians exposed to a lack of protection, a lack of support and a lack of a healthy and safe environment when they go to work. These are concerns that I have in relation to the government's proposals on these issues.

When you talk about maritime safety, you always have to remember where we came from in terms of safety in the maritime industry. I remember, when I was a union official in the early 1990s, the significant investigation and inquiry that went on in the parliament under the Hon. Peter Morris. The inquiry report was named Ships of shame. When you turn your mind back to some of the issues that resulted because of a lack of red tape, because of a lack of proper regulation and because of a lack of enforcement, workers were dying in the international maritime industry. But, when you go back to the nineties—it is not that long ago—the economic circumstances that prevailed at the time meant that there was huge cost-cutting going on in the maritime industry. Look at the situation now: you have arguments that you should be getting rid of regulation because it will reduce costs and it will increase productivity. I have never heard a coalition politician on their feet in this place being able to explain what productivity is, because they just mouth the platitudes. They just go on about improving productivity, and then they conflate productivity with cost-cutting—about cutting workers' wages and conditions, and cutting regulation that protects workers when they go to work. That is the sort of increased productivity you hear from the coalition. They relate this to red tape and you see important parts of the control systems in this country pulled apart on this altar of improved productivity when it is nothing more than cost-cutting. This side of the chamber finds that an unacceptable proposition. It is totally unacceptable to just have red-tape reduction—getting rid of important protections for people in this country. When you start cutting costs, safety suffers.

In the Ships of shame inquiry, we saw that the lack of so-called red tape and the lack of regulation at the international level allowed flags of convenience to be the norm in the international shipping industry. We certainly are not arguing that the domestic maritime industry will go down this path quickly in this country, but you always have to be careful that the rhetoric does not have unintended consequences. The rhetoric of red tape reduction—getting rid of checks and balances and supports for working people in this country—is very easy to happen under the rhetoric from the coalition.

We saw with the flags of convenience that ship management and international companies flouted international conventions. They argued at the time that those conventions were merely red tape—that those conventions were regulations that were impediments to productivity and impediments to the effective operation of their business—and that the market should be just allowed to rip. So, while we support this bill, I am pleased to have the opportunity here today to draw attention to some of the consequences if we are not careful and we are not clear about what the implications could be when we remove regulation.

We had ships' masters in the early nineties coming to Australia with crews that they could not communicate with. The ship's master could not speak the same language as the crew, and some of the crews could not speak the same language as each other. We had the situation where communications went down the tube. What happens if you are in charge of a massive carrier bulk ship on the high seas during an emergency and people cannot talk to you? These are some of the reasons you need some red tape. These are some of the reasons you need regulation in a country. You simply cannot trash and sacrifice regulation on the altar of big business demands. You cannot do that. We had crews coming into this country whose quality of training was abysmal. Some of them had no training or they could not communicate with each other. They were just taken off the shore, put on a ship and were supposed to learn on the go. There was no regulation about what the training should be. There was no red tape to make sure that people were safe. This was the experience in the Ships of shamereport. We had false qualifications in the industry. Qualifications were being forged.

There has been, since the Ships of shame report, progress towards dealing with many of these issues. But, if you listen to the rhetoric of the coalition, I am sure there would be some of the extremists—and there are many of them in the coalition—who argue that 'this is simply red tape gone mad', that 'it is regulation gone mad' and that 'the bosses can look after themselves; just trust big business, they will fix it all up'. I come from a background where I have experienced what happens when big business is allowed to operate without proper regulation. I have experienced what happens when red tape, which is really about looking after workers' rights, is removed. I have seen this happen, and I do not think we can go back to that. That is why I am raising, in my contribution, the need—even though we support this bill—to be careful about this approach on regulation. In the 1990s, the Ships of shame inquiry, which was a joint coalition and Labor inquiry, found that there was no red tape in place and there was no regulation in place to make sure that some of these crews were fed. They were denied food on some of these ships, they were bashed up on these ships, because it was a free-for-all. Big business was doing what big business wanted to do. There was no red tape and no regulation applying. So you need red tape and regulation in specific circumstances.

Where red tape and regulation is old and antiquated, then we will have no problem dealing with those issues. When they do not impede the operation of a business, then I question the need to make such a big issue of removing antiquated red tape that does not interfere with anything and is wasting the time of the parliament. Some of these maritime ships had two pay books designed to deliberately deceive. The red tape and regulation was being ignored. There was accommodation that was absolutely atrocious on these ships. There was a lack of washing facilities. The crew could not even wash. I say, if it is a bit of red tape to make sure that someone on a ship can wash, then that is red tape that is worth having. That is regulation worth having. If it is red tape to say that there has to be a healthy and safe working environment, then that is red tape and regulation worth happening. If there is red tape that says that maritime crews have to have a reasonable standard of medical care, in my view, that is red tape that is worth having. These are issues that we have to be careful about.

In supporting the bill, it has given me the opportunity to provide some balance to this argument that all red tape is bad, because all red tape is not bad. I am sure that this afternoon, when we get down to looking at some of the bills that are going to keep us here probably all night, there will be plenty of red tape in those bills. I have not seen the bill to any great degree so far, because it was a secret until this morning, but I am sure that no-one will stand up here and say, 'There will be no red tape in relation to the bills that will be before the Senate this afternoon,' because red tape, protections and regulation are part of a democratic society. I agree that one person's red tape is another person's protections. Protections should always be at the forefront; not an ideology that says, 'All red tape is bad, because the IPA has said it is bad.' The troglodytes in the Institute of Public Affairs say: 'This is bad. Everything will be great if you just let the market rip. If there is no red tape, if there are no protections, the market will look after it and the bosses will look after you. Don't worry; everything's going to be okay, because the market will look after you.' I have never believed that nonsense. I do not think anyone with any common sense believes that. It is only the ideologues on the other side. It is only the extremists on the other side that believe these things. When we are looking at red tape reduction, always be aware that there are two sides to red tape, and one side to red tape is the protection of people's rights, the protection for workers to go to work and come home safe. If that is red tape, so be it. That is an important component of red tape. That is regulation working effectively. We cannot have the extremists in the coalition simply picking away, initially, then ripping and tearing away proper regulation in this country. People will lose their lives if red tape and proper regulation are not there in the area of health and safety.

It was the trade union movement that had to argue with the previous Howard government to actually do something about asbestos. We have had 'ships of shame' full of asbestos coming to this country. All we hear from the coalition is that you must get rid of red tape and regulation. This is ideology gone mad, on the other side. We support this bill, we support getting rid of regulation but we support the rights of workers having decent safeguards through red tape or regulation when required. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While it is tempting to respond to Senator Cameron's paean for the socialism of Britain in the 1950s and the history of inquiries into international shipping—and indeed his love of red tape!—this bill is in fact about marine safety domestically. I note the Labor Party is supporting it and I commend the bill to the Senate.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I looked across at the parliamentary secretary, Senator Ryan, and I thought he was going to make a contribution, not close the debate, and I was listed to speak on the bill.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has closed the debate on the second reading, but you can always speak on the third reading.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator Sterle, are you seeking the call?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President.