House debates

Tuesday, 28 March 2006

Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005

Second Reading

6:42 pm

Photo of Jill HallJill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Howard government’s record on Australian shipping is a disgrace and it should hang its head in shame. The zealots on the other side of this parliament have all but destroyed the Australian shipping industry. I ask: why? There is only one answer to that question: it is driven by an ideological hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia. Every decision the Howard government takes in relation to our shipping industry, which is vital to the prosperity of our nation and vital to a sound economy, is driven not by what is the best or most beneficial approach or by what is going to take Australia forward. Rather, it is driven by its hatred of the MUA.

You only have to listen to the contributions made to this debate on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 by government members to see this hatred and the union-bashing approach to shipping. On the last day that this piece of legislation was debated in this chamber, I listened to the member for Blair. The whole of his speech was directed towards rhetoric attacking the MUA. To my way of thinking, that is not a positive approach. That is not looking at building a vibrant shipping industry. Rather, that is a very negative approach that is designed towards destroying an industry rather than seeing it prosper, grow and benefit the nation that it is there to serve.

This has been to the detriment of Australia. As has been said many times in this debate, particularly by people on this side of the House, Australia is an island nation. In the past, Australia has been noted for its maritime expertise. Internationally, we have Australians working in the maritime industry and they are highly respected for their knowledge and professionalism. Yet what do we have? We have the Howard government constantly undermining this Australian industry that provides jobs for Australian workers—an Australian industry for Australian workers.

The Howard government’s approach to shipping is very different to the approach that is being adopted overseas. For instance, the UK have appreciated the importance of a strong national shipping industry. They believe that this is important from the point of view of onshore and offshore activities. There has been considerable effort made in the rebuilding of the industry because of the benefits that it provides to the nation. Within the European Union there has been a commitment to the shipping industry, including a commitment to developing the skills of the industry. Compare that to what is happening in Australia and you will see why we should hang our heads in shame.

The industry has been undermined by the Howard government through the skyrocketing numbers of continuous voyage permits and single-voyage permits—CVPs and SVPs—that have been given to overseas flagged ships. These ships do not have to meet the Australian standards. Their crews are paid at a lower rate than that of Australian seafarers. This has undermined the shipping industry in Australia. The Howard government’s shipping policy is not driven by the national interest but rather by hatred for the MUA.

The US has a very different approach to shipping to the approach that the Howard government has adopted. A letter that I have received from the Maritime Union of Australia highlights the commitment of the US government to a strong merchant navy. The US government argues for a strong merchant marine and Jones Act fleet to ensure that the US has a world-class vessel to meet sea lift needs and that it has expert and experienced seafarers to crew the US government’s organic surge in sea lift ships in times of national emergency. Its policy is to have a US industry crewed by US seafarers in times of national emergency—think about that. It has a modern shipyard industrial base that is critical to the nation’s security and makes intermodal transport systems available for defence use through the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift agreement. This approach has had the support of a number of US presidents, the most recent being President George Bush. In 2004, he said:

The United States needs a maritime policy tailored to 21st century needs. Programs that have contributed to the growth of our domestic fleet, such as the Jones Act … should be maintained.

That is a very different approach to that adopted by the Howard government—an approach that has seen CVPs and SVPs issued to international operators flying flags of convenience with crews that do not have to pass the same security tests as crews of Australian ships. I believe that this is placing at risk not only our shipping industry but also the safety of our nation and our environment.

I will return once again to the letter I have in front of me. It goes on to talk about the guidelines, how they are being abused in the issuing of the CVPs and SVPs and how the permit system—this is a little bit of history—was introduced as a reform. At that particular time it had some support, but, unfortunately, this is a system that has been abused. It has weakened our industry and has resulted in a system that I think has all but led to the destruction of our maritime industry here in Australia.

I think we only have to look back to September 11 to see the importance of ensuring that we have a shipping industry operating in our Australian waters that is secure and that we can be confident will operate in the way that we would like it to for both security and environmental reasons. There are serious concerns about port security which have surfaced both nationally and internationally. These concerns have been addressed by nations by ensuring that there is a pool of their own nationals with marine skills and expertise.

Here in Australia we have adopted a different approach. We have embraced the CVP and the SVP and we have supported a contraction of our shipping industry. The current tax and regulatory system favours foreign ships and foreign crews. This has been put to me in evidence to the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services, that I am a member of. Shipowners have mentioned that in that context. Shipowners in Australia are also very concerned about the destruction of our Australian shipping industry. So on the one hand we have shipowners concerned about the destruction of the industry and on the other hand we have the Maritime Union concerned about the destruction of our shipping industry.

This bill makes amendments to the Lighthouse Act, the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. It makes a number of amendments to the Navigation Act, including revising the pilotage provisions to provide for compulsory pilotage in areas specified by regulation, revising provisions relating to reporting of ship movements and revising the requirement for six months notice before the minister can cancel or continue a CVP. There are increased penalties for major offences that pose a threat to life. You cannot disagree with most of the amendments that are included in this legislation. But, more importantly, I support the second reading amendment that has been moved which holds the government to account for failing to uphold Australia’s national interest by adopting an anti-Australian shipping policy, one that favours foreign vessels and crew despite the risk to national security and jobs.

I mentioned a little bit about the CVPs and SVPs and how they are very contrary to the national interest. When the former member for Shortland the Hon. Peter Morris was in this parliament, he chaired the committee that brought down the ships of shame report. That report very graphically identified the problems that exist within the industry, where you have these flag of convenience ships traversing up our coastline with unskilled crew from unknown origins with questionable levels of competency.

A couple of years ago I visited one such ship in the Port of Newcastle. It was a Maltese flagged ship—I think it was the Angel III from memory. It had a Greek captain and a Burmese crew. All the signs on the ship were in English or Greek and none of the Burmese crew could speak a word of English or Greek. Other occupational health and safety signs were also not in the language of the crew and I was very concerned about the treatment of those crew members.

Some reports have been prepared and delivered. The report Ships, slaves and competitionand the former member for Shortland was the chair of that committee inquiry—looked at shipping from an international perspective. Former Minister Sharp and Peter Morris were involved in those reports. Each of those reports came up with similar recommendations that showed that the current system was not working. It was not providing the protection that we in Australia would expect and it was leading to the destruction of our shipping industry. It was being driven by the government of the day not because we do not need a shipping industry but simply because they do not like the MUA.

Single-voyage permits have enormous implications for port security, particularly in such times as we are in now. Unlike members of the government, I really do value the contributions of our Australian seafarers. I know that they are committed. I see the member for Blair enter the chamber; I did refer to your contribution to this debate little earlier. I was quite critical of your anti-MUA comments and your failure to come to terms with the real issues that surround the shipping industry. I do believe that it is in Australia’s interests to have a vibrant shipping industry, one that includes all the professions, all the trades, all the expertise and skills that are needed to achieve that.

I think I should mention the KPMG compliance review of coastal shipping completed in October 2004. It was quite a scathing attack on the government. It showed that there are many problems associated with the way this industry is operating. This particular report was leaked and revealed in the Australian on 18 July 2005. It is a damning report of the Howard government’s handling of the Australian shipping industry, the administration of coastal policy, the licensing, and the permits for foreign vessels. Once again, it goes to the way this government is driven not by the best interests of the nation but rather by its philosophy.

The report demonstrated that there were inadequate financial controls, that the government was unaware of fraud, that there were errors and irregularities relating to licences and permits and that there were poor records. Those poor records resulted in one in five approved licences and permit applications being made in the absence of correct information and with existing regulations out of date. What this says to me is that the process in relation to these CVPs and SVPs is in chaos. If the government is serious about what is best for Australia it will make a commitment to our Australian shipping industry. It will ensure that we have Australian flag ships. It will ensure that we understand the ownership trail of two particular vessels and it will not issue any CVPs or SVPs without having the proper information. I implore the government to embrace the shipping industry. I implore the government to address these real issues. I implore the government to make a decision to support our shipping industry and to move away from these CVPs and SVPs which, I believe, are placing the security of our nation at risk. They are placing our environment and our pristine coast at risk.

I conclude by mentioning the MV Wallarah that used to take coal from Catherine Hill Bay to the port of Newcastle. It is now operating in the waters surrounding Australia. It is a Tongan owned ship and sails under the flag of a different nation. It is very sad when an Australian built and owned ship is now part of the fleet of another nation. The government stands condemned for its policy. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments