Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Few things are more important than ensuring that the legislative framework for protecting our environment is as effective as it can be. This is especially so in the area of shipping. When accidents occur on the high seas they can have devastating consequences. For instance, in June 2007 the Pasha Bulker ran aground off Nobbys Beach at Newcastle during a storm. This required a dramatic helicopter rescue of the crew, made up of Korean and Filipino mariners. The subsequent investigation raised concern about the failure of the ship's master to take on ballast, or to weigh anchor and move offshore before the winds associated with the storm reached gale force. In March 2009, the Pacific Adventurer lost 30 containers overboard in heavy seas, with one or more piercing the hull as they tumbled overboard. The result was a 60 kilometre long oil slick that hit the beaches of the Sunshine Coast and the northern part of Moreton Island. The clean-up bill reached $34 million and led the then Labor government to successfully seek to increase the liability limit under the 1996 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.

A year after that accident, the Chinese bulk carrier, Shen Neng 1, ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef east of Rockhampton. The vessel was 10 kilometres away from normal shipping lanes. I flew over that incident on one of the AMSA Dornier aircraft and could see for myself where the channel was and where the ship simply forgot to turn and kept going in a straight line to hit that reef with catastrophic damage. It tore a hole in the reef that was three kilometres long and 250 metres wide—the equivalent of about 58 football fields. Not long after that, the Liberian flagged vessel Rena hit the Astrolabe Reef off Tauranga in North Island, spilling 350 tonnes of oil into the Bay of Plenty. The accident shut down New Zealand's export sector. The captain and the navigator of the vessel were later jailed for seven months for incompetence. At that time, I, along with the New Zealand minister, flew over the site while it was there off the coast of New Zealand's most significant export port and there Australian safety experts from AMSA and other organisations provided vital assistance to our Kiwi neighbours at a time of extraordinary stress.

In an island nation like Australia, which relies very heavily on tourism to generate income, on the beauty of our pristine natural environment, we need to ensure that the strictest possible controls are placed by this parliament. We are coastal people. We love water. So do the more than 6.6 million tourists who visit our nation each year supporting an industry that employs more than one million people. But it is not just the waters around the Australian coast that we should be concerned about. Consider the consequences if there was a major shipping accident in Antarctica, one of the few pristine environments left on the globe. It hardly bears imagining and that is why Labor will support the bill that is before the parliament today. As much as we value and want to encourage the maintenance of a vibrant shipping industry, we regard environmental protection as a key role of government. We will always take a conservative view when it comes to balancing economic activity and the environment.

This bill seeks to amend Australian maritime legislation to better align it with our obligations under the new International Maritime Organisation conventions. It also amends the definition of 'dangerous goods' in the Navigation Act. The bill changes four acts. Critically, it closes a loophole that potentially allows heavy grade oil to be used as ballast in Antarctic waters and it ensures that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority can take appropriate enforcement action against vessel operators who do not carry appropriate insurance certificates. It is completely appropriate that the parliament support these changes. More than 25,000 international vessels visit our waters each year. More than 99 per cent of our exports are moved by sea. The potential for accidents is real and it must never be underestimated so we must always take the precautionary approach. That is why at every turn we should ensure our legislative protections are as strong as they can be and are kept up to date. While accidents will always happen, there is nothing accidental about making sure our legislative regime is up-to-date and fully in accordance with international conventions. Labor will support this legislation because it is in the national interest. But I note that other proposals before this parliament relating to shipping run against the national interest and are counter to the principles and philosophy which supports this legislation.

I speak specifically of the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which passed through the House of Representatives on 14 October and which the government seems very reluctant to bring on to a vote in the Senate. This is ideologically driven legislation which should be rejected by the Senate because it is completely at odds with the legislation that is before us today. That is because it increases the risk of shipping accidents. It does this by opening the way for foreign flagged vessels paying Third World wages to undercut Australian flagged vessels. The government is engaged in this extraordinary proposition because it wants to destroy the Australian shipping industry. It sees no preference in the regulation and legislation being provided for and indeed removes the very definition of what an Australian ship's. Why does it do that? It does that because the legislation provides for no preference at all between an Australian ship and a foreign flagged ship. So, if there is no distinction drawn, there is no need to define what an Australian ship is. It removes any reference to there being a national interest in revitalising Australian shipping. It is bad legislation. Indeed, the legislation itself explicitly says that it will result in a loss of Australian jobs. It says this in the explanatory memorandum itself. I quote:

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).

There it is. An extraordinary thing has happened. Before this parliament legislation is brought forward that says very explicitly, in the explanatory memorandum that a majority of the House of Representatives members voted for, that this will result in a reflagging—that is, the Australian flag taken off the back of ships and replaced by the flag of Liberia or the flag of Panama or another flag of convenience. It says it there in the legislation. It also says that Australian seafarers will be replaced by foreign seafarers being paid foreign wage rates. Extraordinary. The regulatory impact statement that is also a part of the legislation says this, and I quote again:

… 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.

It continues, and I again quote directly:

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 offer all workers on the now foreign flagged ships internationally competitive wages and conditions.

At the moment, if you have a foreign ship being used around the Australia coast on the domestic freight task it has to pay Australian wages, just like if you are a foreign company in Australia involved in trucking or involved in the rail sector or involved in any other task you have to pay Australian-level wages. That is what we do as a nation because if you do not do that of course the Australian based industry cannot compete, and that is what the legislation says very explicitly. Therefore, the Australia based industry will be replaced by a foreign based industry paying foreign wages. There is nothing clearer, no clearer example, than a race to the bottom—in this case, a race to the bottom of our seas. That is what this legislation represents. This is Work Choices on water. This is unilateral economic disarmament, because there is no other advanced nation in the world that allows for a free- for-all with regard to domestic shipping tasks.

Indeed, in the United States under the Jones Act, in the land of the free market, not only does every ship that is engaged in coastal trade around the US coast have to have a US flag and US seafarers on it but it has to be built in the United States as well. Because the United States has understood for decades, since the First World War when the Jones Act was a response to that war, the very real national security connection between its merchant fleet and its naval fleet, the skills transfer and the practical benefit of having the presence of its national flag around its coastline. Yet here in this chamber, the majority of members voted to remove the Australian flag and replace it with a foreign flag around our coast. Indeed, while the government has advanced this legislation as an attack on red tape, the regulatory impact statement states very clearly that 88 per cent of the perceived benefit of the legislation is attributable directly to the difference between Australian wages and foreign wages—that is, almost all—and that is the very purpose of this legislation.

In the section of the regulatory impact statement discussing non-bulk trade across Bass Strait, the advice could not be clearer. It says, 'We assume four vessels will register under a foreign register to reduce operating costs'—that is, four out of six ships that are engaged in that activity. So there can be no doubt the legislation will put people out of work because it is designed to put people out of work. Already Alcoa, which made a submission to the Senate committee that examined this legislation supporting it, has made a pre-emptive decision to replace its ship that undertakes trade movement, the MV Portland, from Victoria round to Western Australia and return journeys. The department, in a clear breach of its own legislation and its responsibilities to implement the legislation that is in place today, has granted temporary licences for an activity that is anything but temporary, that is a part of the very operation that Alcoa undertakes between Western Australia and Victoria. And those loyal employees of Alcoa have been asked to staff that ship, take it to Singapore where it will be sold and they will be made redundant. That is a decision which flies in the face of the legislation that the department and the government have a responsibility to actually follow.

Attempts by the minister for transport to deny what the effect of the legislation would be have collapsed at the first hurdle, at the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. Perth businessman Bill Milby of North Star Cruises told the committee's hearings last month that on 20 May he attended the minister's formal announcement of the shipping reforms. During the question-and-answer session following the minister's speech, Mr Milby asked the minister whether he was aware that these changes would damage his coastal cruising business. The minister asked Mr Milby to speak to the department. Indeed he did speak to the department official Judith Zielke and asked what he could do to prevent the changes putting him out of business. According to Mr Milby, Ms Zielke told him he should deregister his vessel, reflag it, sack his Australian crew, re-register the vessel overseas and hire a cheap foreign crew. On June 16, Mr Milby came to Canberra to speak to Ms Zielke and Mr Michael Sutton, where received identical advice. The department in the evidence confirmed that this was given. They said they did not tell him that he should do that. Of course they did not; they gave him options—the option was reflag your vessel or go out of business. They were the options, and they are the options that are there. I do not blame the department on this occasion for that advice, because that advice is consistent with what the legislation says very clearly and very explicitly. The intent of the act is to put Australians out of work. If this legislation becomes law it will lead to an increase in foreign flagged vessels working our domestic trade routes in defiance of Australia's economic and national security interests.

The proposals also defy our environmental interests. What do the Pacific Adventurer, the Pasha Bulker, the Shen Nengand, in New Zealand, the Renaall have in common? None of them had the Australian flag, or in the Rena's case the New Zealand flag, on the back of those vessels. All of them were foreign flagged ships. All of them resulted in considerable damage being caused to the Australian environment, something that this legislation before us today quite rightly seeks to avoid.

Logic tells you that Australian mariners will be far more familiar with our coasts than will the crews of foreign vessels. Australian vessels also observe our shipping laws with regard to workplace health and safety. You do not have circumstances, as occurred under the Shen Neng, where the captain says he has not slept for more than a day. You do not have those circumstances. The cost of that flouting of occupational health and safety rules and regulations was washed up when that incident occurred on the Great Barrier Reef. We can have less confidence if we have a system whereby it is just a free-for-all around our coasts—let alone the national security interest whereby Australian mariners are subject to the maritime security identification card and to very strict security protocols and checks. The truth is that foreign seafarers do not have MSIC cards and are not subject to those same checks. At a time of international insecurity it is extraordinary that we would say that there is no distinction at all there. At the beginning of the speech, those four incidents were all there.

I spoke last night to the Maritime Industry Australian Ltd dinner, along with assistant minister McCormack, representing the government. Industry is on the same page as the workforce, as anyone who examines this other legislation. I again reiterate to the government our preparedness to look at changes to existing legislation that will boost productivity and that will make a difference without ensuring that the Australian flag is removed from around our coasts. We want to reduce business costs. We also want to employ Australians. It should not be beyond the wit of the government to support that also. Industry supports that. It was a very successful function last night. The Norwegian ambassador gave an articulate and extraordinarily detailed contribution about the importance that the maritime sector plays in the Norwegian economy. Norway is a maritime nation that has a very small portion of the world population but represents five per cent of the global shipping industry. It has a high-wage economy and has worked on innovation, on maritime clusters and with its workforce in a cooperative way, with the support of the government, to achieve good outcomes for Norway. That is the way forward for Australia—not a low-wage race to the bottom but using our innovation, our skills and our capacity to grow our maritime sector.

We will be supporting this legislation because we believe that protection of our marine environment is absolutely critical, but we will also be consistent about it and will support propositions across the maritime legislative framework that also seek to protect our environment. I commend this bill to the House.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which amends maritime legislation and enacts a number of provisions relating to maritime safety and the environment. The legislation before the House today implements measures to amend and correct errors in Australia's maritime legislation. Importantly, it also ensures our domestic obligations are aligned with various international conventions in accordance with the International Maritime Organisation, the IMO. As a government it is our duty to ensure that our laws for the prevention of maritime pollution are adequate, up-to-date and consistent with international law.

This bill will amend four principal acts: the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008, the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 and the Navigation Act 2012. This bill ensures that the definition of 'dangerous goods' in this act is amended to align with the current definition as found in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. I am advised that there are also some drafting errors that have been identified by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which are rectified by this legislation. It makes amendments to the protection of the sea act to replace the definition of 'sea near a state', which was amended as an unintended consequence of a drafting error in the Maritime Legislation Amendment Act 2012. It also corrects errors in the current legislation to allow action to be taken by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority against non-compliant vehicle operators. Currently the acts limit the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's ability to take enforcement action against operators who do not carry appropriate insurance certificates. This bill amends the relevant acts to ensure it accurately specifies the appropriate certificate that the vessel operators have to maintain.

Importantly, for environmental protection this bill will also include an additional measure to close a loophole related to heavy grade oil, or HGO, in Antarctic waters. The context behind this is that last year the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO was made aware that a fishing vessel had sunk in the Antarctic while carrying HGO in its ballast tank. I understand that the heavy grade oil was slated for use as fuel once the ship had left the Antarctic area. But, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I must admit I am speaking on advice rather than on experience on this one—a ballast tank is designed to assist with a ship's stability and would ordinarily hold water. The flag state of this vessel, the state under whose law the vessel is registered or licensed, did not take action, as they interpreted the regulation as not extending to banning HGO carried as ballast. Essentially, this interpretation exposes a loophole that the government believes is inconsistent with the original intent to minimise the presence of HGO in Antarctic waters. The serious incident also highlighted the real risk to the Antarctic area. This amendment will close that loophole, ensuring that Australia's domestic legislation is consistent with our obligations at an international level.

The need to protect the environment and the waters of the Antarctic also extends to the need to educate our young people on the value of environmental leadership. I was quite struck when reading through this legislation by how often matters that happen at a national level can actually have direct and local relevant impact in places like the Central Coast. Earlier this month, at the Marie Byles lookout at Bouddi National Park in Killcare Heights, I was able to join with some of the local Landcare groups and the Greater Sydney Local Land Services to announce a number of grants in our electorate. There were over $100,000 worth of grants through the National Landcare Program to fund three separate projects. The first was for $30,000 to assist with the preservation of the wagstaff spotted gum. The second was for Cockle Bay reserve at Empire Bay, with $20,000 to help clean up the area there, preserve native vegetation and also help protect threatened species.

The third grant that I wanted to speak about actually goes the importance of preserving our marine environment and acting against marine pollution. This was a grant of $54,000 to provide a series of workshops to educate around 20 primary schools on the Central Coast. The funding goes to an organisation called Take 3, which promotes student participation and leadership through its green sea turtle project. The Take 3 organisation aims to stop the impact of marine pollution through education and participation. During the program slated for the first two terms of next year, primary school leaders will become experts and advocates for marine creatures and our marine environment. They will do this through an increased awareness of the impact of litter, of threats to marine life and of how to be able to express this in the local community. I do believe this will be an outstanding program for young students on the Central Coast. I must say, I do look forward to joining the students in their endeavours when this program commences next year.

As I said on the day during the launch, I remember when I first got involved with what has shaped up to be one of our Green Army programs, which was all about helping our young people, our future generations get involved in green environmental initiatives to help protect and preserve our environment. I went out with a local group thinking, 'I am pretty committed to our environment. I love our environment because we live in one of the most beautiful environments in the best country in the world on the Central Coast.' I participated in one of these activities with Johno Johnson from Clean 4 Shore who said to me, 'Lucy, I've got to get you out in a wetsuit; come and join us and clean up the mangroves.' I really started to learn what it was all about. I spent over four hours with a number of young students from Brisbane Water Secondary College. We did indeed go out to the mangroves at Pelican Island at Woy Woy and I did think they look beautiful, absolutely pristine when you drive by them. But we spent four hours out there that day and that was something like the second or third time in as many months that Clean 4 Shore had been out to that very area. We picked up nearly four tonnes of rubbish that day in just four hours. I had never learnt so much about the importance of environmental awareness and initiatives as I did that day. I do commend these sorts of environmental and education programs because I think they do help change our understanding of the impact on the marine environment that our actions can have.

I note that the president of the Organisation for the Rescue and Research of Cetaceans in Australia, Ronnie Ling, a guy from Springfield in my electorate, is down here today meeting with the Minister for the Environment. In speaking with him about this legislation and about its impact, he said to me that all marine life is dependent actions of all people. People can have such a devastating effect through their own habits. As marine species are decreasing, people's use of the marine area can cause an increase in pollution. People need to take control of their actions to ensure the protection of marine areas and the species that inhabit them. This legislation, by removing the loophole relating to using heavy grade oil as ballast to ensure that HGO cannot be carried as fuel or as ballast on vessels in the Antarctic region is an important measure to help provide greater protection for our marine environment.

While the legislation before the House today deals with a number of provisions relating to maritime safety and the environment, it is also part of a wider narrative linked to the Central Coast that I would like to be a touch on in my remaining time here. One of the facts within the minister's second reading speech on this legislation actually caught my eye and that was the fact that nearly all or 99 per cent of our imports and exports are carried by ships. This ranks Australia as the fifth-largest shipping task in the world. On the Central Coast of New South Wales, where my electorate is, there were $619 million worth of international exports from our region in 2013 to 2014 according to the most recent to data provided by the Central Coast Regional Development Corporation. Manufacturing had the largest total exports by industry on the coast, generating $292 million in one financial year. There were $2.9 billion of international imports to the Central Coast in that same year, so shipping in the maritime industry is in fact quite relevant to our local economy.

In fact, the thriving import and export industries that help boost the Central Coast economy have a link to our own illustrious history of shipbuilders. And this Sunday, I am excited to be joining the Rotary Club of Kincumber, in conjunction with our local council, at the official opening of the shipbuilders memorial. I am advised that the event this weekend will be at 1 pm on Sunday at Carrack Road in Kincumber. The mayor of Gosford, Lawrie McKinna, the state Minister for Planning, Rob Stokes, and the president of Kincumber Rotary, Dave Richardson, will join us. Constructed on the foreshore of Brisbane Water, and in the works for the last five years, this is a project of which our community can be truly proud. Gosford council and Kincumber Rotary have done an extraordinary job not only raising funds for this memorial but also ensuring that it is done in a way that reflects the distinguished history of this industry in my local community. I am pleased to say the federal government has contributed with a maritime heritage grant of just under $10,000. This will help build, care for and promote this piece of local history for future generations.

Shipbuilding was a bustling industry on the Central Coast. Between 1829 and 1953, more than 500 vessels are known to have been built in and around my area. In the early days of the New South Wales colony, coastal shipping was essential in transporting the valuable hardwood timber down to Sydney. Great pride was taken in constructing timber vessels in many of the villages that surround Brisbane Water, like Kincumber, Davistown, Blackwall, Empire Bay and Terrigal. Two of the most influential boat builders in this period were Jonathan Piper and James Woodward. Mr Piper is particularly well known as a shipwright, having built 24 vessels and been a father to 14 children. This project honours these men with permanent memorials on the waterfront and, where possible, in locations close to where they carried out their work.

While the size of this shipbuilding activity declined with the introduction of steel vessels, some level of shipbuilding continued almost through to the present day. The concept of a shipbuilders memorial is based around a large main memorial to the overall industry and its members, and a series of smaller memorials dedicated to the memory of key individual shipbuilders. Renowned local marine architect John Woulfe has designed these structures—sandstone pillars connected to a stainless steel rib that looks like a partly built ship. They are quite brilliant, and the vision of Kincumber Rotary Club is to be congratulated. It is not just a memorial to a faded past, but also a reminder of what we are capable of as innovators and successful businesspeople on the Central Coast. I commend this bill to the House.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Robertson for her contribution, and her description of 24 boats and 14 children!

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too was interested in the contribution of the member for Robertson, and her focus on marine and maritime heritage. Unfortunately, that is what is going to be left of the Australian shipping industry at the end of this government. We will have an industry that has been mothballed, and will be just remembered with nostalgia in museum exhibitions because the government are doing their level best to destroy anything that could possibly resemble an Australian shipping industry.

As a nation that is a trader, as a nation that exports most of what we produce, we should be a shipping nation. Part of our workforce and skills should be centred on the maritime industry. Unfortunately, and there has been a whole series of reasons why this has been so, we are seeing the demise of the shipping industry. There was a great effort in the 1980s and 1990s to modernise the Australian industry, to get rid of most of the restrictive work practices and put this on a proper modern industrial footing. Unfortunately, I believe the strategies that are being taken by the government today are very much designed to put an end to that. Although the legislation that we are dealing with at the moment focuses on important but small amendments to legislation in order to improve environmental outcomes from shipping activities—and we strongly support those—I think it is important that we take this opportunity again to put on the record our concern about that which is happening.

Of course, most recently we have seen the dispute that arose when the federal department issued a temporary permit to the vessel MV Portland to engage foreign crews for shipping of Alcoa's products between Portland and Bunbury. We see that it will be the workers who are currently, as I understand it, mostly based out of Western Australia—the 19-odd crew that crewed this vessel—who will be lost. They will be sacked and they will be replaced by foreign workers to do that Australian trade. So we are talking about intra-Australian trade, moving from Portland in Victoria to Bunbury in Western Australia. And as from next week, unless a legal action in relation to the validity of that permit is successful in the Federal Court, these maritime workers will be sacked and they will be replaced by foreign workers.

This is at a time where we are seeing job losses in Western Australia increasing quite dramatically as the mining boom goes down. I will just quote some of a note that I got from a seafarer, Dale Eaton, who is just absolutely in a state of shock and disbelief about the actions that have been taken by the Turnbull-Truss government and by Alcoa. He says:

The MV Portland has operated for 28 successful years between Portland VIC and Kwinana/Bunbury WA, in that time the Portland has trained a number of Deck and Engineering Officers as well as countless TIR/PIR Trainees to become professional seafaring IR's as it was the first purpose build ship for the MIDC concept, Which de manned vessels to keep trade routes open so Australian seafaring could be cost effective for the longevity of our industry.

So it was part of a project that allowed manning levels to be significantly reduced and to make Australian shipping a more cost-effective and internationally competitive industry. He says:

Now that we have been given notice we are battling each day with the hardships of families, uncertain futures and financial commitments. After 28 years of operating, the crews moral on board is at an all time low with each crew member is dealing not only with their personal hardships and struggles but also worried for the Australian seafaring future in this industry.

In what other industry would we find that acceptable? Would we find it acceptable for a manufacturing operation in Portland to lay off 19 people and to import labour from elsewhere to take their jobs? I think it really is a very difficult position that the government is now moving us into. There has been no adequate explanation of the decision by the department to allow this vessel to de-crew its Australian crew and replace it with a foreign crew. This is—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is happening under your legislation.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a permit that you authorised.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was your legislation!

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We believe it was the department acting in anticipation of the bill that you are attempting to get through the parliament, and the validity of this will be challenged. Of course, it is open for you to direct that this not happen. Indeed, it has happened under your watch and you need to take responsibility for it.

It is not simply this vessel. We are being constantly contacted by seafarers who are concerned by what is going on in their industry. Another Western Australian gentleman has contacted me. His name is Norm Potter. Norm comes from Geraldton. He is a master mariner and has worked in offshore oil and gas since 1989. For about 12 years, he has been sailing as a master aboard a variety of vessels in the offshore industry, and he is a permanent employee of a particular company. He has not worked since July this year, and he is using up his long service leave in the hope that work may become available. I am told he says there is a good chance he will be made redundant in 2016. This cannot be explained away just by the change in the offshore oil and gas. There is still plenty of work out there, but the problem is that so much of this work is now being done by foreign workers on visa classes 400 and 988. Norm says that he totally understood and supported overseas workers coming into the industry during the boom construction phases in WA, when Australian workforce could not cover the positions required, but that has changed, and now we are seeing, nevertheless, a failure to respond in clawing back the availability of those visas. This is why we are starting to see the unemployment level in Western Australia clawing up. We all accept that there is a change—that the mining construction boom is over. But it is absolutely appropriate that we now take steps to very severely wind back these temporary visa classes so that those Australians who are currently sitting on unemployment queues with incredible skills to do these jobs are given an opportunity to do them.

It is certainly important to understand that during that massive boom there was broad bipartisan support and support from the union movement for the use of temporary migration visas to allow us to take full advantage of the investment opportunities that were being generated by the high iron ore and gas prices, but we now have to be prepared to look at a very different set of circumstances. We need to ensure that we are providing adequate jobs for Australians.

There are two things we are seeing happening here. Firstly, these visa classes are still being issued even though there are quite clearly Australian workers with the skills able to do this task. Secondly, we are allowing the coastal trade to be taken over by foreign crewed vessels. We have to be protective of our industry. We have quite rightly made the requirements that they get efficient, that we do not have vessels overstaffed and that we have modern technology and work practices on our vessels. But we have that. We have the unions in the shipping industry working together to achieve that. It is simply unacceptable for us to allow those skilled workers to be denied jobs and to deny jobs to young people who are currently going through programs at Challenger TAFE and various other maritime training centres along the coast of Western Australia. They really have vastly diminished job opportunities.

At the end of the day, it is the generation of employment, the generation of well-paid jobs, that is going to in fact create the Australian dream. They will create a society where we have a sense of opportunity, a society that has the drive and the confidence to go out there and innovate. Look at the sort of remuneration received by the CEO. While his base salary in 2014 was only $1.4 million, he received total compensation of $18.2 million, including $8.7 million in shares, awards and stocks. It says something, doesn't it? They will be skimping on the wages for 19 skilled, experienced, long-serving Australian crew on the MV Portland, to save probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars by putting on foreign seafarers, whilst the CEO feels it is appropriate that his total remuneration package is $18.2 million. It goes to a very significant problem that we are seeing in our society, where we have this incredible gap opening up between the ordinary working person and those with the top salaries that CEOs are awarding themselves.

We want to have an Australian shipping industry. It is not an unrealistic aspiration. It is not an impossible aspiration. But what we have seen here with the government's conduct—its preparedness to keep issuing those temporary visas and, indeed, encouraging those temporary visas and its actions in granting permits for coastal shipping to be taken over by foreign crewed vessels—is completely and utterly unacceptable. I think Australians will understand that we need to be providing good-quality Australian jobs for our people as our first priority.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I thank those members who have contributed to the debate, although I notice that members opposite have spent very little time actually talking about this bill, the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. They have, in fact, been talking about legislation which is going to be debated in the Senate later this day. Therefore, I will not take a lot of time in the House to respond to those issues; it will be more appropriate for that to happen in the Senate later this day. Let me just say to the member who has just resumed her seat and to the shadow minister, who spoke earlier, that we share a concern about the fate of the Australian shipping industry. The government wants there to be a strong and profitable Australian shipping industry, employing Australians and providing services around the Australian coastline. We want to create jobs, not just in shipping but also, in particular, on the land. We do not want jobs to be lost in the manufacturing sector in Australia because the cost of our shipping is so high that it is cheaper to bring things in from overseas than to move them around the Australian coast. That is the situation at the present time. Those issues clearly have to be addressed. That is the reason the government has been brave enough to try to tackle reform in the shipping industry and to deliver an environment which may enable it, therefore, to be an industry that is progressive and that achieves its potential into the future.

Let me say two other things in response to the honourable member. All of the problems she is talking about are occurring under the existing legislation. If there are problems with the laws, they are problems with Labor's laws.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issuing of visas is within your control.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to visas in a moment, but let's talk firstly about the shipping legislation. Everything that is happening now is happening under the laws that were introduced by the previous Labor government. The decline from 30 to 15 in the number of ships registered to operate on the Australian coastline has occurred under those laws. The reductions for the transitional register from 16 to eight have all happened under those laws. Those arrangements are, therefore, entirely of the making of the previous government. We agree with the comments that that legislation has not worked and has not delivered a prosperous shipping industry. What I find incredible is that Labor clearly must recognise that their legislation is not perfect in every detail and yet is not prepared to countenance any change. It is not prepared to accept the legislation. It is not proposing amendments to the bill. I have made it quite clear that, if there are amendments around, we are prepared to consider them. We are prepared to consider them, but nothing is being proposed.

Opposition members interjecting—

Rushing the legislation? It has been around for six months, so that is just complete nonsense. Do you want the current situation to continue? If Labor wants the current rules to remain in place, that will mean a continuing decline in the number of Australian ships, it will mean a continuing loss of Australian manufacturing jobs and it will mean imports will be more competitive than Australian goods way into the future. But Labor does not want to make any changes.

Let me also refer to the issue of temporary visas. There have been far fewer temporary visas issued under this government than under the previous government.

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

We have issued fewer. If the honourable member wants to make criticisms about this, she should look internally. She should look at what happened under her administration, and she will find that, under Labor, there were more of these visas issued than there have been under this government.

As I said earlier, all of this debate has nothing whatever to do with the legislation that is before the House of Representatives at the present time. The only thing that links them together is the word 'maritime'. If I may therefore move on to a more constructive address to the issues, can I in fact acknowledge that the opposition in this instance is supporting the bill. This legislation is important in helping to secure a safe and environmentally sustainable maritime sector. The purpose of the bill is to amend four principle acts, namely: the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983; the Navigation Act 2012; the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008; and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981. The bill will implement measures to amend and correct a range of Australia's maritime legislation, ensuring our domestic requirements give effect to our international obligations. Of particular importance is the amendment to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, commonly known as MARPOL, that will ban the carriage of heavy grade oil as ballast in Antarctic waters. The ban will enter into force internationally on 1 March 2016. To ensure Australia remains compliant with its international obligations an amendment to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 is required prior to that date, and that requires passage through parliament in the 2015 spring sittings.

The bill includes an amendment to the definition of dangerous goods in the Navigation Act 2012 to include goods which are not just listed but also characterised as dangerous goods under the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. In addition to the amendments already mentioned, the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 will amend the definition of the sea near a state in the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to ensure full implementation of MARPOL. It will correct technical drafting errors in the Navigation Act 2012 and amend the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage) Act 2008 and the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 to restore the ability to take regulatory action against non-compliant vessel operators. I thank those members who have spoken in support of the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.