Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition, I welcome the opportunity to address the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. The intent of the bill is very straightforward. It follows a process of consultation and seeks to achieve the integration of the Australian Maritime College, based in the seat of Bass in Tasmania—historically, a Labor Party initiative—with the University of Tasmania. I am pleased that the bill includes funding conditions on the University of Tasmania for five years. The objective is clearly to ensure that the Australian Maritime College continues to play a significant role as a national provider of maritime training education following the integration.

From the opposition’s point of view, and following consultation with the industry and the maritime unions, that objective is very important. We have a huge problem on the skills front with respect to our seagoing workforce. In one way or another, we have to do more to increase the attractiveness of working in the industry and to encourage people to pursue a career in the maritime industry. This is important because we have to provide a framework which ensures the integration does not dilute the AMC’s standing and, historically, its important role as a key VET provider in Australia. The Maritime College must also retain the flexibility to adapt itself as a national regional maritime VET provider. Under the integrated model it is therefore important that funding arrangements do not mean that it is forced to increase its focus on foreign fee-paying students, as has occurred in recent years to too many tertiary education institutions, especially in regional Australia.

This concern has been partly addressed in the bill by imposing funding conditions on the University of Tasmania for five years and by requiring the minister to conduct a review of the integration before the end of the five years. I would hope that the House committees are involved in that review. Importantly, I note for the benefit of the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services that that would be an appropriate job for that committee to undertake over that five-year period. Whilst it is not in the bill, it is a requirement that the university also include industry stakeholders in the development of the Maritime College business plan, following integration. That is also important because, historically, industry stakeholders have played a very important role in the nurturing and development of the Australian Maritime College. We should go out of our way to ensure their ongoing hands-on involvement in trying not only to guarantee the future of the college under the umbrella of the university but also to lift its importance, especially with respect to domestic training in Australia. That is one of the concerns the industry and the unions have expressed to me in my consultation relating to the bill before the House today.

Interestingly, some stakeholders have also put to me that graduates leave the Maritime College with a good theory base but with little practical experience. There is therefore a need to address a wide range of issues, including transferability from the Navy to the merchant marines; pilot training that includes seagoing experience; and port-specific training that addresses a wide variety of maritime conditions in Australia. Those are just a few examples of where we think there is scope to improve the performance of the college, based on recent experience.

These are some of the issues that could perhaps be addressed if stakeholders were included in the development of the Maritime College business plan. I will move the second reading amendment, to be tabled this morning, so as to also address in passing some concerns, as well as others, relating to the serious skills shortage in the maritime industry and the need for far-reaching training reform at a national level.

The second reading amendment that I will move later draws heavily on the resolution, approved by the Labor Party’s national conference, involving consultation with marine engineers and the Maritime Union of Australia in April this year. It was a very constructive discussion aimed at trying to find solutions to some of the training problems that confront the maritime industry in Australia in the 21st century. These unions, representing workers and also the views of many employers in the industry, are concerned about the skills crisis in the maritime industry and are therefore proposing sensible policy responses to address this problem after what we consider to be a decade of neglect by the Howard government.

This is important because you also have to think about the importance of the maritime industry and coastal shipping, not just international shipping, and the growing challenge confronting Australia on the freight task. Australia’s freight task is set to double by 2020 and our most important transport priority for the future is to make intermodalism work and to plan supply chains to take advantage of the different strengths of road, rail and shipping in the freight task, in association with the aviation industry. That is why a federal Labor government will focus national transport spending on not only national road and rail networks but also their integration with air, sea and inland ports to create a national intermodal transport network. That goes to the issue of making sure that we also improve our performance on training, because you are going to need a bigger workforce to confront this growing freight challenge.

A national freight logistics plan is long overdue and needs to include the shipping industry—something that has been absolutely neglected by the Howard government. The Howard government has basically said that we should vacate the field as a nation, following the last decade. Shipping, as we all appreciate, will not be able to fulfil its potential in Australia’s national freight task if there are no trained crew, engineers, pilots or officers to work in it. This is an attractive industry to work in; it just needs some government support because employers, union representatives, the workforce and their families are highly committed to the industry and they want better leadership at the national level.

It is the view of the opposition that our national infrastructure transport priorities have to focus on three things, including the issue of training, because without training and a skilled workforce we cannot achieve these three things: firstly, productivity gains in our key export supply chains, like wheat lines, coal and iron ore, and rail and ports; secondly, integration of our land transport system with air, sea and inland ports to improve productivity and general freight movement; and thirdly, easing urban congestion in our major cities. The best thing the Australian government can do to ease these urban congestion issues is to invest in freight corridors to take traffic off commuter roads and passenger rail lines. There are staggering statistics that 85 per cent of containers entering and leaving Sydney are destined for the Sydney basin itself and that 80 per cent of those containers are moved by truck between Western Sydney and Port Botany along the M4 and M5.

Let us put an end to this so-called argument about competition between road, rail and shipping. The best interests of the city as a whole have to come first, and the freight task is going to represent ample opportunities for all transport modes in Australia. There is also a clear need to further upgrade dedicated rail freight infrastructure, improve crane, road and rail freight handling at Port Botany and expand the debate beyond the current government’s focus on labour productivity to also look at the need to actually invest in some modern capital equipment, such as an increase in the number of cranes at some of our port facilities. That would be an integrated approach to increasing the efficiency of road, rail and shipping transport infrastructure.

I raise these issues because I think it is important that we have a broad debate about these issues. Labour reform in the maritime industry is important, but I think the bill does not address many of the training concerns that need to be dealt with beyond the integration of the AMC and the University of Tasmania. The important thing will be that the AMC now works with the unions and the industry to ensure that maritime training needs for the future are met. Let me say that, compared to international container movement rates, there is still potential for further productivity gains in Australia, but the big emphasis should now be on more cranes with trained crews at ports and easing other infrastructure capacity constraints.

Unfortunately, the government cannot see beyond its ideological war with the maritime unions to address these more pressing and challenging problems, which are raised with me on a regular basis by industry in criticism of the government’s very narrow approach to productivity on the waterfront, with a total focus on the workforce rather than also looking at the broad challenges going to the infrastructure bottlenecks which are a huge productivity barrier to the future of the maritime and seagoing industry in Australia. I say that because forecasts for growth in Australia’s international maritime cargo trades are staggering.

I simply say to my colleagues in Victoria: the sooner you make a decision on the deepening of the Melbourne harbour the better, because it is now not just a barrier to international vessels going to the Port of Melbourne; they also will not go into the ports of Brisbane and Sydney until we get the Port of Melbourne right. That is an absolute priority for the Victorian government to sort out sooner rather than later, in the same way that the Australian government has some challenges with respect to some of these infrastructure bottlenecks that are its responsibilities around Australia.

That is important. Let us think about it. The Australian international container trade will almost triple by 2020, so time is not on our side with respect to some of the port facilities and the associated rail and road infrastructure. Also, there is going to be an ever-increasing important debate about intermodal facilities in key capital cities such as Sydney and the absolute priority of the development of the Moorebank facility. Just as the tardiness of the Victorian government in making a decision on the deepening of the Melbourne harbour is important, there is also a requirement for the New South Wales government and the Australian government to get their heads together to get on with the development of the Moorebank intermodal facility.

This is important because bulk facilities at Australian ports present another looming challenge. Increased motor vehicles trades with specialised port requirements must be addressed over the next decade, including relocation from inner harbour areas to regional ports such as is occurring, for example, with the port of Wollongong. Grain exports are by their very nature unpredictables but could increase by 50 per cent—another challenge for the Australian community, because I think we effectively have a meltdown of the wheat rail infrastructure in a number of key states at the moment. For example, in Western Australia, if we are not careful, we will see 1,000 kilometres of the rail system—currently operated, effectively, by Babcock & Brown—falling into disarray sooner rather than later unless there is urgent government action at a state and federal level in partnership with the private sector. I could go on to refer to iron ore, coal and alumina exports, which all present challenges to the Australian community. With the growth in trade, I could also point to our requirement to not only sort out the Maritime College and its new partnership with the University of Tasmania but to also sort out a broader approach to training in Australia to guarantee that we have a trained workforce in place to meet the growth in the freight task that is going to be part and parcel of the challenges confronting Australia in the future.

We have to streamline training in this industry and create modern opportunities. Hopefully, the bill before the House is about going part way to achieving that end objective.

Interestingly, the bill also authorises the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to share its information with other Australian state and territory government agencies and other parties for the specific purposes of maritime domain awareness, maritime safety, protection of the marine environment and efficiency of maritime transportation. This is interesting because there is currently no specific legal authority for AMSA to share information gathered for its purposes with other parties. The clarification of its powers will hopefully enhance maritime safety and security, protection of the marine environment and efficiency of maritime transportation.

Our examination of the bill found no direct financial impact from this bill. The 2007-08 budget includes a figure of $61.4 million, representing the consolidated net assets that will be gifted to the University of Tasmania as a result of the integration.

On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we support the bill. Obviously there are some riders embodied in the review after five years and also the requirement for the industry to be involved in consultation to make sure that this transfer of responsibilities is a success.

This bill has not been without controversy. It follows a long period of review in Tasmania and some local concerns in and around the operation of the Maritime College in the seat of Bass in Tasmania. I express the dismay of the opposition that the member for Bass, Mr Michael Ferguson, did not regard this bill to be of sufficient urgency and national importance for him to find time to come and address the Main Committee and the House on the bill. I commend the bill to the House. The second reading amendment lays down some of the things—such as consultation and the streamlining and strengthening of training—that should occur in Australia as part and parcel of this initiative. On behalf of the opposition, I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the government for neglecting the skills, training and certification crisis in the maritime industry over the last eleven years and calls on the government to:

(1)

ensure the AMC has an independent chair;

(2)

include industry stakeholders in the development of the AMC Business Plan following the integration; and

(3)

act as a matter of urgency to consult with industry employers, unions, training institutions, AMSA, the industry skills council and State and Territory governments to:

(a)

ensure the availability of suitable maritime training and skills development arrangements to meet the skills needs of the maritime industry;

(b)

ensure there is a coordinated approach to resourcing and delivery of maritime training across all maritime training institutions;

(c)

ensure that any bottlenecks in the distribution of resources to maritime training be resolved, aimed at ensuring training expenditure is allocated to regions and to projects having the greatest demand for seafaring skills;

(d)

assist in expediting industry research on reconciling data on maritime industry skills supply and demand with the capacity of training institutions to deliver relevant training;

(e)

review the charter, management and focus of the Australian Maritime College to ensure it is responsive to the needs of the Australian and regional maritime industry;

(f)

develop a nationally coordinated scheme to ensure that both private and public shipping assets are harnessed in an effort to maximise opportunities for maritime trainees to gain sea time as a necessary part of acquiring a maritime qualification; and

(g)

consult with regional Governments on the most appropriate ways to involve regional nations in the training and skill formation strategies for the offshore oil and gas industry, to assist in meeting Australia’s skills needs and to facilitate skills transfer as a part of Australia’s commitment to regional development”.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Batman has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the amendment but I support the spirit of some of the member for Batman’s initiatives. I, too, have a great interest in maritime training. In an earlier manifestation, I helped put together the first TAFE Maritime College in Bundaberg. It is still there. It has moved from East Bundaberg to Burnett Heads. I might add that the current minister has a million-dollar grant available to put a ring road around Burnett Heads that will facilitate activities at the port and also at that marine college and other facilities in the port precinct.

It is very important that we have training for our maritime sailors and the tradesmen associated with them. There needs to be an integrated approach to training. All the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 does is bring two tertiary institutions together. It is not a difficult thing, but I would like to reinforce the point that maritime training is very important. In Bundaberg we have a naval cadet unit called the TS Bundaberg. A lot of the young people who go through that course end up at the Australian Defence Force Academy or go on to careers in the Navy, but a lot of them go to Launceston. A son of my best friend had his access into that industry through the cadet unit. It provides a focus for people who want to have a life at sea other than that in the Navy.

It has always been a surprise to me that we—probably the most distant nation from anywhere else in the world—are not a nation of sailors. You would think that we would be, but sadly we are not. Anything that we can do to reinforce the spirit of effective training is a good thing. I am sure that the reason for combining these two institutions was to create more tertiary gravitas there, which I hope will flow on to the young people who do courses at Launceston.

I would like to touch on two other matters that are marine connected and that the member for Batman touched on. One of the other matters is the importance of getting freight from our ports into the basins, particularly the basins of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. On our recent inquiry into the great freight task, as we called it, of the arterial road and rail systems of Australia and into their connectivity to the ports, we expected that there would be a lot of pressure for hubs at places like Shepparton, Parkes, Moree and Toowoomba. But strangely—and this confirmed something the member for Batman said—the pressure was for internodal hubs in the outer metropolitan basins of those three leading capital cities. One of the sad things is that we have enclosed our ports with too much development. This is not said as a criticism of any particular government; it has just been a trend of state and federal governments in the past not to reserve land around the ports. Brisbane is lucky in the sense that freight can move into the maritime environment by going east into Moreton Bay, but the others are pretty much constrained—as is the corridor into the port of Brisbane, which is very much constrained.

So the member for Batman makes a good point, but the matter is addressed in the report that we have recently issued. I am sure that the minister will take that into consideration when he looks at the report. In this particular report the committee said, ‘Let’s not go again and recommend more studies.’ Transport, in its four forms in Australia, has been inquired into endlessly—particularly the maritime aspects of it—so I think it is now time for action on these things. I think that will improve the efficiency of our maritime industry. It will improve the efficiency of our exports. It will give us, I think, a bigger maritime industry, and perhaps a shipping industry will develop. This highlights the even more important role that the new integrated Launceston tertiary institution will have in Australia’s future.

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members who have made a contribution to the discussion on the Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. To sum up, the bill will enable the integration of the Australian Maritime College with the University of Tasmania to proceed. The integration is strongly supported by both organisations as a means to facilitate greater leveraging of capabilities, broaden course offerings and generate cost reductions through the rationalisation of facilities. They are all objectives that I am sure all members would support. Certainly those members who I have listened to in the last half hour in the chamber have alluded to them. This will ensure that Australia and the region continue to have access to a world-class maritime research, education and training institute.

The bill repeals the Maritime College Act 1978, under which the college was established and currently operates, and transfers all assets and liabilities from the college to the university. In return, for a period of five years the university will be subject to conditions on certain funding it receives from the Commonwealth under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. These conditions will ensure that the college continues to operate as intended after it is integrated into the university. I will come to some of the conditions in a minute.

The bill also authorises the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, to share its information with other Australian state and territory government agencies and other parties for the specific purposes of maritime domain awareness, maritime safety, protection of the marine environment and efficiency of maritime transportation. This information includes data from a new, international, long-range identification and tracking system for ships, which comes into force on 1 January 2008. Information from the new system will be distributed to other government agencies through the Australian Maritime Identification System, AMIS. AMSA receives vessel movement information from other sources, which also is to be fed into AMIS for distribution to other government agencies to improve whole-of-government maritime domain awareness.

There is currently no specific legal authority for AMSA to share with other parties information gathered for its purposes. In addition to the benefits to Australian government agencies in sharing in AMSA’s information sources, states and territories, port authorities and coastal pilot service providers could use AMSA’s information to improve navigation safety, environmental protection and transport efficiency, including in such areas as vessel traffic management and port infrastructure planning and operations. The information will be released only for the purposes specified in the bill, and its release will be subject to internal written procedures and written agreements with relevant parties that will specify the conditions on which the information is to be released and how it is to be handled to ensure compliance with relevant privacy and information laws.

On the first part of the amendment with regard to the Australian Maritime College, and to respond to some of the aspects of the shadow spokesman’s amendment, I inform the chamber that in this amendment, at item 17, the bill provides that one of the conditions on the university—and I mentioned that those conditions apply for five years—is that the AMC have a board that includes persons with expertise in the shipping industry and knowledge of seafarer issues, shipping safety and seafarer certification. The condition, to be in place for five years, requires the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to be satisfied that the AMC is continuing to meet its maritime certification in education, training and research objectives. This is the sentiment behind the opposition’s amendment and, as far as the government is concerned, that is certainly reflected in that condition that will be applied to the university with the transfer of these responsibilities so that there remains not just representation on the board but fundamentally a continued focus on seafarer issues, shipping safety and seafarer certification. I commend the bill to the House.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Batman has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.