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

I must say that I agree with what the previous speaker had to say about the government’s attitude. It is very disturbing, as I am standing here in this House to speak on what I believe is an extremely important piece of legislation and on which we have had five members including myself speak, that the government could only find one member who was remotely interested enough to put his name down to speak. The Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 is extremely important legislation that goes to the very safety of our shorelines here in Australia. I have spoken many times in this House on maritime issues, maritime safety and protecting our coastline. Shortland is a coastal electorate and, as such, I believe that it behoves me to raise issues that affect the security of the people whom I represent in this parliament.

I see this legislation as very disappointing. I think it has taken the government a very long time to even come to the position of introducing this legislation, which is half-baked and will not secure our coastline. It is legislation that treats foreign mariners in a different way to the way it treats our own Australian mariners. It is an absolute disgrace, and one of the legacies of the Howard government when we look back will be that it has overseen the destruction of the Australian shipping industry, an industry that we should be working to grow here in Australia because it is a source of many jobs and of great knowledge that we can sell to overseas nations. Instead of that, the Howard government has allowed our seafarers and merchant seamen to lose their standing within the industry worldwide. It is an industry that has faltered under the Howard government and one that should have grown. I think the government members need to hang their heads in shame.

I intend to go through the legislation before us tonight, then I will turn to the amendment and debate some of the issues that I believe are extremely important and that link particularly to the amendment. Currently, foreign non-military maritime crews and their families are not required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia. That in itself is a condemnation of the government. Special purpose visas are currently granted by operation of law. The process does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crews of these ships are allowed to enter Australia—and I will talk more about that in a moment. It creates a new class of temporary visa to be known as a maritime crew visa.

The application process for the new visa will enable crews to get security clearance before they enter Australia. Shouldn’t that be happening now? At a time when terrorism is a global threat, we have been prepared to sit back and take a second-class approach to the security of overseas crews when they enter Australia. The visa can cease by declaration where it is considered undesirable for a person or a class of person to travel in, enter or remain in Australia. The bill also includes express powers to revoke such a declaration to allow for situations where additional information may come to light about a person’s suitability to travel and remain in Australia.

Looking at the history of this legislation, on 22 December 2005 the government announced $100 million for a maritime crew visa system for all international seafarers visiting Australian ports after July 2007. That was December 2005, and here we are at the end of February—we may as well say March—debating legislation that comes into force in July this year. This shows very little commitment to security and very little commitment to ensuring that international seafarers have some sort of security check, albeit a security check that will be nowhere near the level of the security check that our own seafarers must undergo.

A large component of the money will go to IT systems, and there will be 19 additional regional seaport officers through the Customs department. I understand Customs will receive $39.5 million for 66 new Customs officers. The regional seaport officers will link into the IT system to check records and sea crew movements.

The maritime crew visas will replace special purpose and other visas currently granted by operation of law to foreign crews of non-military ships. The granting of maritime crew visas will require a formal application to be made and will allow each foreign crew member, spouse and dependent child of such a crew to be subject to a security check before being granted the visa. I emphasise again: that security check will be nowhere near the level of security check that Australian seafarers undergo.

The bill will create a new class of temporary visa called a maritime crew visa. This visa will be valid only for travel and entry to Australia by sea. Maritime crew visa holders must enter Australia at a proclaimed seaport unless an authorised officer authorises entry in another way or in an emergency situation. Maritime crew visas will cease, as I have already said, if the minister declares that that should be the situation.

I turn now to the amendment, which I think encapsulates all the concerns that I have surrounding this issue. The first point in the amendment goes to the issue of the use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels with foreign crews and emphasises that these foreign crews do not undergo proper security checks. The use of CVPs and SVPs has burgeoned under the Howard government. This has led to a downgrading of the Australian shipping industry. It has led to a situation where our shorelines are less safe than they were before, and it will take years to turn this around.

It is interesting that, whilst the Howard government has allowed this situation to develop, countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have been investing in developing their own maritime industry. They recognise the importance of having a strong maritime industry. In Australia, an island nation, I think we need to recognise that the waters surrounding Australia are highways, like the highways that pass through the country. They are highways with ships circumnavigating the country, and I do not think the Howard government has recognised this.

The SVPs and CVPs are issued to foreign owned ships that sail under a foreign flag and are crewed by a foreign crew. I visited these ships that have been issued with CVPs and SVPs within the waters of Australia. The one that I often talk about is the Angel III. I visited it in the port of Newcastle. That ship sailed under a Maltese flag, it was crewed by a Burmese crew, and the captain of the ship was Greek. I asked the captain of the ship whether the crew spoke English, and he said, ‘No, they don’t.’ Then I looked around at all the safety signs on the ship and I found that they were written in English. I also asked the captain if the crew spoke Greek, and he said, ‘No, they don’t’—and any other signs that were around the ship were in Greek. I put it to the House that this hardly demonstrates safety on the ship and it demonstrates that there is very poor communication on these ships.

At a time when security is a major issue, and when Australian seafarers and maritime workers are required to obtain maritime security identification cards, it seems rather strange to me—and somewhat incongruous—that foreign seafarers are not subjected to the same level of security. They are not subjected to any security at the moment. The requirement is that 48 hours notice for crews and cargoes be given before a ship enters the port. It will not be a surprise to members on this side of the House that that requirement is only adhered to in 67 per cent of cases. That means that 33 per cent of the ships entering Australian harbours do not adhere to that rule. Fifteen per cent do not advise about the crew or the cargo until they actually berth. From my perspective, that is a major security issue. There is obviously no effective security screening of those crews that enter Australian ports. I believe that this has enormous security implications for us as a nation.

If we go back to the Angel III, which I spoke of a moment ago, the Burmese crew who were on that ship appeared to me to be extremely intimidated by the captain of that ship. I would argue that there is absolutely no way that we could ensure the safety and security of the people in that port. These ships carry very dangerous substances—for example, ammonium nitrate—and, while they are in port and as they are travelling around the coastline, they have the potential to create an enormous devastation. I would argue very strongly that that is a grave security risk to our nation.

Another example that I often use is the MV Wallarah, which was a little ship that used to take coal from Catherine Hill Bay to the port of Newcastle. It was a wholly owned Australian ship and was crewed by Australian seafarers. It was a ship that we in the Hunter were very proud of. Unfortunately, under the Howard government regime, the MV Wallarah is no longer an Australian owned or flagged ship. It now sails under the flag of another country and is now crewed by overseas seafarers, yet these seafarers no longer have to undergo the security checks that our Australian seafarers underwent.

Any reasonable person would ask why a government would allow an industry that is so vital to an island nation such as Australia to be destroyed. I can only come up with one answer, and that is that this government has destroyed our Australian seafaring industry and our Australian shipping industry purely and simply on ideological grounds. This government is driven by a hatred of unions, and on its top-of-the-pops list is the MUA. The government has a great hatred for the MUA. This government has allowed our Australian shipping industry to be destroyed simply because it has sought to destroy the MUA by allowing these CVPs and SVPs to be issued to foreign crewed ships and ships that sail under foreign flags. As I demonstrated earlier when I talked about the Angel III, they can all be from different countries—for example, Malta, Greece and Burma. I think this government really needs to look at what is good for the nation and what will benefit Australia as a whole. The thing that will benefit Australia is a shipping industry that is strong.

A number of inquiries have been conducted into the shipping industry. My predecessor in this parliament, Peter Morris, was Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure when they conducted an inquiry into the shipping industry and tabled in this parliament a report called Ships of shame. That report demonstrated the conditions that those foreign seafarers work and live under and the level of respect that they have. The report showed that these crew were definitely inferior to our Australian seafarers. I put to the House tonight that these crew are much more likely to be involved in terrorist activities than any Australian seafarer.

I would argue that, if the government is really serious about security in our ports and security on our coastlines, it needs to require the same level of commitment and the same level of security clearance from overseas seafarers as it requires from Australian seafarers. I would also argue that, if the government is serious about security, it should invest in the Australian shipping industry and it should move away from destroying the Australian shipping industry through the issuing of CVPs and SVPs. Whilst ships travelling around the coastline of Australia are travelling around under those permits, we cannot ensure the safety of our coastlines. (Time expired)

See this speech in context