House debates

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

Bills

Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015; Consideration in Detail

5:09 pm

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

To respond to the minister's last point: that is the consequence of removing any distinction in real terms between Australian flagged ships and foreign flagged ships in their ability to operate and to be present around the Australian coast. To argue that that is a plus is quite disingenuous. I met with the minister and indicated that, if the minister had practical suggestions to support Australian industry and Australian jobs, the opposition would certainly be willing to consider them.

When it comes to cruise shipping, we have the difference between 40 per cent Australian crews—because the large cruise vessels are exempt and are not part of the regime that applies for other vessels—and an expectation in the government's own modelling of zero per cent Australian crews. That fact indicates that it is the full expectation of the government that the cruise shipping industry with an Australian flag on the back will simply disappear.

That was the evidence given by North Star Cruises, particularly Mr Bill Millby. His submission was very clear. Does the minister accept Mr Millby's statement to the inquiry on 20 May 2015 that the following happened? I will read from Mr Millby submission.

The Executive Director's advice to me during that discussion was that if NSCA wanted to remain competitive with the foreign owned and crewed ships it should—quote "consider taking out a ship 'True North' off the Australian Shipping Register, re register the ship in a suitable foreign country, lay off our Australian crew and hire a cheaper foreign crew". When she suggested this I told her that I could not believe the suggestion she made and she said quote "to remain competitive in the world that is what we should do". At that point I asked for and was granted a meeting with her in her Canberra office to further discuss the issue—prior to the Legislation Amendment Bill being tabled.

Then on 16 June 2015 Mr Millby be met with Judith Zielke and Michael Sutton and the account of that meeting is this:

I asked how they expected Australian expedition ship owners such as NSCA to compete with the foreign crewed ships and remain in business and they suggested the following:-

1. First, take "True North: of the Australian shipping registry

2. Registered "True North" in a foreign country, and Re-flag our ship "True North" with a foreign flag.

3. Then replace the Australian crew (apart from the captain and the chief engineer) with foreign crew who would not be governed under the Australian labour laws and the Australian "Fair work Act"

4. The foreign crew would also be trained in a foreign country—

not Australia, saving more money.

This follows the statement from Tony Briggs, who was the head of the Cairns based Coral Princess group. He said he was selling out to foreign interests in anticipation of this legislation. Mr Briggs said:

There will never be another passenger ship built in Australia if there is no certainty on how we can operate. It is exporting jobs.

He did that with his business.

It is extraordinary that this evidence is not from the Labor Party or the MUA. This is evidence from businesses—the people who actually operate the cruise ship industry—the people who create jobs particularly in north-west Australia and in Far North Queensland. They are simply saying that this legislation anticipates that this would occur. It is not surprising that the bureaucrats told Mr Millby exactly what was in the legislation and that he had a choice of going out of business or reflagging his ship. Mr Millby was the subject of considerable criticism from yourself, Deputy Prime Minister, and the then Prime Minister in a totally inappropriate way. So I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: why is it that the operators, including Mr Milby, have got it wrong? It is very clear from the legislation, from the evidence that was given before the committee and from the FOI material that was tabled in the Senate from Ms Zielke and Mr Sutton, who confirmed that was an option that was put forward to Mr Milby. Of course, he did have another option: to just go out of business. That was the other option that was presented. What other option does Mr Milby have in order to compete with foreign flagged ships, with foreign crews, paying foreign wages in the competitive environment that is the cruise ship industry in the Kimberley?

Comments

No comments