Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(

It is a real balancing act. On one hand, we need to make sure that we protect ourselves from those who would seek to harm us. On the other hand, 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 Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015, thepiece 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 that the ship will put in place to prevent unlawful interference.It must also include details of actions that would 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 the 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 makes sense.

I note that the minister has said in the other place that the government proposed to amend the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Securities Regulations to this end. This legislation relates, in particular, to Australian flagged vessels, not those from overseas. As much as I am happy to support the changes to exclude Australian flagged vessels from the securities regulations, I note the government still appears intent on removing Australian flagged vessels from our own coastline. While legislation to this effect was defeated in the Senate late last year with the support of the majority of crossbench senators, there has been to date no sign of any changes in that plan by the government. In fact, the minister has granted new temporary licences to foreign registered ships in the full knowledge that Australian seafarers will be sacked and replaced with a ship with foreign crew, paid well below Australian standards. Not only is this unconscionable for any Australian government; it is also contrary to the spirit of the legislation that is the minister's responsibility to properly administer.

I specifically refer to the MV Portland in this respect. The government's legislation would have destroyed Australia's domestic shipping industry. No other G20 nation has this type of arrangement for coastal trade. No other G20 nation! This is why the opposition has characterised that failed legislation as 'unilateral economic disarmament'. For example, the United States, the bastion of the free market, requires that all coastal trade be undertaken by US flagged vessels crewed by Americans. Further, the ships used must have been built in the United States. Yet here in Australia our government, this Turnbull government, wanted to purposely destroy its maritime industry by deliberately putting it at a competitive disadvantage. The intent of the bill was clearly laid out in its supporting documents which explicitly stated that the expectation was that it would cause Australian flagged vessels to reflag overseas. The government's official modelling, for example, said:

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).

The regulatory impact statement explained that:

… 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 pursue more favourable taxation and employment environments.

…    …    …

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 would allow operators to pay all workers on the now foreign flagged ships internationally competitive wages and conditions.

In a section of the regulatory impact statement discussing non-bulk trade across Bass Strait, the advice could not have been clearer:

… we assume 4 vessels will register under a foreign register to reduce operating costs.

The statement also obliterated the government's claim that this shipping reform is about abolishing red tape. It said that while the changes will produce economic benefits for businesses, 88 per cent of these claimed benefits come from savings in labour costs. This was not about eliminating red tape. It was about eliminating people's jobs—Australian people, people rely on those jobs to put food on the table. Strangely, during last year's parliamentary debate, the minister for transport tried to deny that his ideologically driven legislation would destroy Australian jobs. He must not have read his own legislation, the survey or the regulatory impact statement that I just referred to. And it is not what his advisers said. In the course of the Senate committee hearing into the legislation, it emerged that the senior officials of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development gave West Australian businessman, Bill Milby, clear advice about what he should do if he wanted his cruise ship business to remain competitive under the planned changes. Mr Milby was told that he should sack his Australian crew, register his vessel overseas, and hire cheap foreign labour. Despite the minister's attempts to claim this did not happen, the bureaucrats themselves confirmed it had happened, in sworn testimony to the Senate committee. But it is not their fault. They were simply telling the truth about the intent of this now-failed legislation. Why do I raise this failed legislation at this stage? To highlight that it is the aim of those opposite to reduce shipping costs—but to do so, they want thousands of Australians in the shipping industry to lose their jobs. They are quite happy to have that effect.

Labor is also in favour of reducing costs for businesses, but we will always balance that aim against the broader national interest. And I say it is absolutely in our national interest to have a domestic shipping industry. It is in our economic interest, because it provide jobs for Australians and helps meet our security interests. These jobs allow people to raise their families and drive economic activity in their communities as consumers. It is also in our environmental interest, because we know Australian crews are familiar with our coastlines, and that all major shipping accidents off our coast in recent years have involved foreign flagged vessels. And it is in our national security interest to have a strong Australian presence on our coasts to keep an eye out for suspicious activities that might not be recognised by overseas crews.

Labor worked hard with the Senate crossbench to defeat last year's proposed legislation—this failed bill; the most outrageous attack on the livelihoods of average Australians since Work Choices. Alongside other senators, particularly Senators Rice, Madigan, Lambie, Muir, Lazarus and Wang, Labor has worked with the industry to develop sensible adjustments to policy that could give the industry certainty and efficiency. In this context, I would like to acknowledge the work of Teresa Lloyd of Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, and the Maritime Union of Australia, led by its national secretary, Paddy Crumlin.

There have been two workshops in Melbourne attended by a broad cross-section of the industry, including shippers and unions. The most recent was last month, on 21 January. The government has sent no members of parliament, favouring a modest attendance by a departmental official. And in the meantime, the government has granted temporary licences to ships that replace Australian crews, with apparent indifference to the economic, environmental and national security implications of this approach. We would urge the government to improve its engagement with the sector to further our national interests. Efficiency must be part of that discussion. However, the ideological approach of removing domestic shipping must stop.

It is against that background that we contemplate the legislation before us today, which seeks to reduce red tape across Australian flagged vessels. Labor will support this legislation because it makes sense. But if those opposite continue to have their heads in the sand, the whole exercise will be completely academic; there will not be any Australian flagged major trading vessels. With that warning, Labor commends this bill to the Senate.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015. The Australian Greens are opposed to this bill, because we believe the government is yet to make the case for loosening the regulations on registered Australian vessels engaged in interstate trade. It is significant that there is still confusion and a lack of clarity as to why this measure is required in the context that has just been outlined by Senator Collins. It is a context when the job security of people in our Australian shipping industry is under attack like at few times in our history.

I think back to the Patrick's waterfront dispute of the late nineties, which was just down the road from my home in Footscray, when we had security guards in balaclavas locking out workers in an attempt to increase profits. The Melbourne community, the Australian community, rallied around the seafarers and the people working on the ports then and we managed to get change, and managed to maintain, largely, the conditions and the ability for people working in our maritime industries to be able to be paid a fair day's wage and have fair conditions for their work.

What happened on the docks then was supported by the Liberal government of the time; in fact, they were intimately involved with it. Fast forward to 2016 and you have the disgraceful removal of Australian workers who were on board MV Portland over the summer. In the middle of the night, Alcoa's hired goons boarded the ship, kicked off the Australian crew and replaced them with a foreign crew, who immediately set sail for Singapore. This foreign crew, we have heard, were being paid $6 an hour. We know that foreign crews on flags-of-convenience vessels sailing around Australia have been paid as little as $2 an hour.

The crew members of the MV Portland, who were kicked off their ship, are actually in Canberra at the moment. I had the privilege of meeting with some of them yesterday and I understand they are out the front of Parliament House today, and they are telling their stories to politicians. Yesterday, I met with three of the MV Portland crew. I met Liam, who had been on the MV Portlandfor 11 years; Zac, a young seafarer, who was hoping to build his career in seafaring over the coming years and who now faces very bleak prospects of being able to find employment in the industry; and Brett, who lives in Portland. When I asked Brett how he saw his chances of regaining a job in the shipping industry, he thought that he did not have many chances at all.

These are skilled Australian workers. These are people who have spent many years building their skills who are proud of being hardworking Australian seafarers. For someone like Brett, who has spent his life working to build up his skills and who now has very limited prospects of being able to find another job in the shipping industry, it is a very, very sad for him. These are real people. They have real families. They now do not know what their prospects will be and what job opportunities there are for them. There are not many jobs in Portland.

The government actions in supporting the actions of Alcoa in removing these workers from their ship in the middle of the night are not helping the opportunities of these workers to be able to contribute to Australian society. They have real families. They have real mortgages and real commitments. Basically, the reason they were removed from their ship was that they were sacked for being Australians. They were sacked and all they were doing was doing their job and doing it well, and being part of the Australian transport industry. They were sacked because the government agreed with Alcoa that the ship they were on was no longer required and was going to be replaced by a ship that was operating under a flag of convenience, a foreign owned ship, on a temporary licence.

The issue with these temporary licences is that they clearly undermine the full intent of the coastal shipping legislation that we currently have to hand, where the minister is actually meant to be acting to protect Australian shipping. But every time the request for a temporary licence has been put to him, he has signed it off. In this case, and in the case of the other ship over summer that has now been replaced by a foreign ship sailing on a temporary licence, the minister could have said, no, that there was not a strong enough case to show how replacing these Australian flagged and Australian crewed ships with a foreign ship operating under a flag of convenience was in the interests of Australian shipping.

Basically, because the criteria for whether a temporary licence should be issued is that there is no Australian ship available to do the job that is cost competitive, any request for a temporary licence for a foreign ship is always going to outcompete the Australian owned ship—because with the Australian flagged ship we know that we have to pay our workers a fair rate of pay. We know that they have to have good working conditions, whereas when you are competing with foreign ships you have workers being exploited and paid two dollars an hour under atrocious conditions. Environmental standards are being exploited and are totally lax. We know, with very good evidence, of rubbish being thrown overboard and oil spills not being reported. When you are competing with all this there is no way that a well-managed, Australian-crewed, Australian-flagged ship is going to be able to be cost competitive—so the temporary licence gets issued. You cannot be competitive with that sort of appalling regime.

We know that since the MV Portland was replaced three ships so far have done the journey from Kwinana to Portland. Of those three ships, one is under investigation for corruption and one is facing charges of not having paid their seafarers. These are the sorts of ships that are replacing our Australian crewed and Australian flagged ships. These are the sorts of ships that mean we are looking to replace virtually all the ships in the Australian shipping industry. It is an absolute travesty. Here in Australia we are the fourth-largest users of ships in the world and yet we have this government's approach to shipping. They attempted—and failed—to get legislation through the Senate to deregulate the shipping industry, and now they are working with industry to undermine the intent of the existing legislation.

It really is a sign of things to come. The decline in Australia shipping could be arrested, but the legacy of this government seems to be that it is going to destroy Australian shipping. The decline could be arrested. The way to arrest it, the way to revitalise and rebuild Australian shipping, is to provide some certainty to the industry and to be working together, as the MUA and the maritime industries of Australia have been trying to do over the past months with the shipping summits that have been held in Melbourne—trying to bring all players together to work out what the future is for Australia's shipping and how we can rebuild it; rather than the government's agenda, which is basically to say goodbye to it.

There are really good reasons for maintaining the Australian shipping industry, and yet Australian seafarers and Australian shipping have been kicked in the guts and kicked off their ship. This industrial thuggery has been aided and abetted by the Liberal government, who are wanting to deregulate the Australian shipping industry into oblivion. When the local industry most needs our support, the Liberal government is trying to kick it when it is down.

It is a case that is characteristic of this government. It is not just the shipping industry. Whether it is with the Australian Building and Construction Commission or attempts to cut penalty rates, we are seeing attacks on Australian workers throughout the country. These cases show that it is not just limited to the land; we have it happening on land and at sea. So, when the government is talking about loosening regulations and cutting red tape, the Australian people have very strong grounds for scepticism when it comes to this Liberal government.

With regard to the legislation that is before us, I acknowledge that the minister has stated his intention to continue to regulate passenger and vehicle interstate transport, but we are not convinced. As it stands, the security measures in the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act only apply to registered Australian ships that are used for either interstate or overseas voyages, but there is no regulation for intrastate voyages. So currently a journey from Portland in Victoria to Kwinana in Western Australia is covered, but not a trip from Portland to Melbourne. The original bill to create Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act in 2003 failed to justify why this was the case.

The Australian Greens broadly agree that it is difficult to argue as to why a ship operating between Portland and Fremantle needs to have extra security regulations compared to a ship voyaging between Portland and Melbourne, as there are not radically different security regimes between the states. However, there are real concerns that this is yet another attempt by the government to lead a race to the bottom by gutting regulations and endangering people at work.

When this government was headed by the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, we became familiar with, but always dismayed by, the haphazard approach to policymaking of introducing new regulations or tearing up old ones without recourse to evidence or due process. There were high hopes that Tony Abbott's replacement as Prime Minister would relieve us of this approach, but every day, and on every issue, it becomes clear that it is the same old Liberals under Prime Minister Turnbull.

If we want to ensure that regulations are coherent across the country, ensure the safety of people at work and ensure our security, there is another way to do this: we could broaden the regulations to vessels on intrastate voyages and ensure that all vessels, regardless of country of registration, comply with the same standards. The government's logic has the capacity to be extended in both directions. But, for the bill before us today, the Australian Greens feel that the government has simply failed to make the case that this change balances the competing needs of maritime workers, shippers, Australia's international obligations and the broader Australian community, and that is why the Australian Greens will be opposing this bill.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today very disappointed, having to speak about the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015. It should never have seen the light of day, but here we are. That goes to say that I will not be supporting this bill. My understanding of the bill is that it will water down the current Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, which was put in place by the Howard government to improve Australia's maritime security. The current act requires seafarers working on all Australian-registered ships which trade between states or overseas to be assessed by ASIO and the Australian Federal Police to determine whether they are a security risk to Australia's ships and maritime infrastructure and, importantly, the safety and security of our country as a whole. Seafarers who pass this assessment are issued with a Maritime Security Identification Card, or MSIC. In effect, this card means that the seafarer is not considered a risk to our country's security or the security of the vessel. The amendment bill will cease this requirement for Australian-registered ships which move between ports around Australia. Strangely, however, it will not remove this requirement for Australian-registered ships which trade overseas.

At a time when terrorism is at an all-time high and security is a critical issue for our country, I cannot understand why the government would be putting forward such a bill and the Labor Party would be supporting this bill. The effect of this bill is that companies will be able to bring in foreign labour to work on Australian-registered vessels and these people will not be required to undertake a security assessment. This will simply make it easier for companies to sack Australian labour and bring in 457 workers. If this bill is successful—and unfortunately it is, because Labor has decided to get in bed with the government once again—foreign workers working on ships will be able to move around Australia from port to port without any Australian maritime security assessment. These people will be able to just get off the ship at any port.

What sickens me in all of this is that the coalition and the Labor Party all prattle on about how important it is to support Aussie jobs and Aussie workers but then go about undermining Aussie jobs and Aussie workers by putting up bills like this one that do nothing more than remove barriers and help big businesses to sack Australian workers and bring in 457 workers. I have consulted with areas of the shipping industry, and they are opposed to this bill. Every person I have spoken to is of the opinion that the bill will help to kill off Australia's maritime and shipping industry, which seems to be the government's ultimate plan.

Unlike the government and Labor, I have listened to the people of Queensland and the rest of Australia, I am voicing my disapproval of this bill and I am voting how the people of this country want me to vote. They want me to vote against this bill, and that is exactly what I am doing. Perhaps, if the government had consulted with the maritime and shipping industry before drafting this bill, we would not be here today wasting taxpayers' money and time considering this bill. I absolutely oppose this bill.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Tourism and International Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is very committed to boosting the productivity of the Australian shipping industry and reducing red tape. Contrary to the presentation we just heard from Senator Lazarus's and Senator Rice, we are committed to boosting the competitiveness of the Australian shipping industry. That has been one of the objectives we have had for a long time, because we know that an undue cost in the supply chain makes the entire supply chain uncompetitive. So Senator Lazarus' sugar farmers who are moving sugar around the Australian coastline under this piece of legislation will have access to more competitive shipping. That is the point. That is the point of this whole process, and I will dispute his assertion that the industry does not support this; because they do. I also dispute his assertion that it is all about replacing Australian labour with foreign labour, because that is not what this bill enables. So can I say, Senator Lazarus, I am going to have to disagree with the arguments you have made in your presentation.

The government wants the Australian shipping industry to be competitive so it can provide an efficient and competitive service to Australian industry; that is the point. That is what we are striving to do and that is what we have been striving to do through previous pieces of legislation that we have looked at. So exposing the Australian shipping industry to competition will drive innovation, will drive reductions in cost and will make them look more closely at their businesses to provide a more cost competitive and efficient service to Australian shippers. That is what it is about.

We also remain committed to ensuring that our transport systems, be they road, rail, aviation or maritime, are safe, secure and efficient. In this regard we continue to foster Australia's economic prosperity—as I said—through a safe, secure and efficient maritime transport system. Australia's maritime transport safety settings are regularly reviewed to ensure that they are appropriate to changes in the maritime security environment. And it is a delicate balance between security and regulatory overlay. It is a delicate balance, and it is important that we continue to look at it.

A recent joint review between industry and the Australian government was undertaken to investigate the need to continue security regulating Australian ships solely on interstate voyages. That review confirmed that there is no ongoing benefit to security regulating Australian ships used solely on interstate voyages except for passenger and vehicle ferries. As such, the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015 will see a reduction in red tape which does not provide any security benefit. In other words, the security regulation of Australian ships engaged solely on interstate voyage except for passenger and vehicle ferries will be ceased. This action will provide a reduction in running costs for operators of Australian flagged ships engaged solely on interstate voyages. Additionally, it establishes a level playing field for ships moving between states and those solely engaged on intrastate voyages, as arguably there is no increase to a ship's security risk that comes from crossing a domestic state border.

The security risks will not change if the existing regulatory regime is removed, and this bill does not prevent operators from employing their own security measures to protect their business operations and assets. However, should there be a change in the maritime threat environment there are a number of powers available under the act to protect the shipping industry, including a requirement for ships to implement additional security measures while in Australian ports and reregulation of Australian ships on interstate voyages.

While not a part of this bill, it is proposed that passenger and vehicle ferries on interstate voyages will continue to be regulated as it is in the public interest. This bill has no impact on the security arrangements of foreign flagged ships operating in Australian territorial waters.

These ships still need to be security regulated by their flagged state and are required to undertake a range of security activities specified in the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and include these in their ship security plans.

Furthermore, all foreign ships entering Australian ports are required to have and to provide a valid International Ship Security Certificate or equivalent to the Australian Border Force, and this information is made available to ports. Crews of foreign-flagged ships will continue to be required to be escorted or monitored when in a maritime security zone.

These amendments will have a positive outcome for industry by reducing the regulatory burden and associated costs without compromising security. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Inter-State Voyages) Bill 2015 be read for a second time.