Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too wish to make my contribution to the Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013. I would like to follow on from my colleague Senator Thorp's comments. I too looked at the Order of Business this morning and saw that there were a couple of bills mentioned for general business today—one about migration and one about Fair Work—which I think will attract a lot of conversation, and a lot of conversation should be had at this stage of the parliamentary cycle. We should be talking about the migration amendment and Fair Work, but I find that all of a sudden this bill has popped up out of nowhere. It has been in the other House. I believe it was introduced by the member for Denison, Mr Wilkie. I have no doubt that to Mr Wilkie it was a matter of extreme importance, and no-one would argue that, but there must be some cunning plan from those opposite that this was not on the agenda for today and somehow now it is. Mr Wilkie's motives are more than honourable, but unfortunately some unforeseen circumstances would come out of this bill, should this bill pass as it is, without amendment.

As with all bills, it is most important that we have a moment of thought about the history of one of Australia's greatest industries. I never played a direct role in shipping—I am proudly a boat owner, but that does not rate anywhere amongst Australia's maritime industry, seafarers and waterside workers. Of course, marine engineers play a very important role. I would like to think about this for a moment and share with the Senate some thoughts I have about just how important shipping is to this great nation. It is a no-brainer that we know we are an island and without shipping we would not be in the fantastic position we are in. Shipping not only imports numerous items that we take for granted, such as clothing, white goods and certain cars—although I wish more were made here in Australia, but unfortunately that is not the case—but also there are our exports.

We all know, particularly those of us who come from the great state of Western Australia, the importance of the mining industry to Australia's future and present and also to our productivity and our economy. But it does not matter how great our materials or commodities are or how good and efficient we are at getting them out of the ground and moving them to the ports if we do not have efficient ports. We are succeeding at that particularly under this government and under the guidance of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese. He honestly and truly gets the importance of efficient ports. We have to get the materials onto the ships to disperse them around the world. It does not take a lot to work out that, without shipping, we certainly would be in the dark ages.

We have to have a safe and sustainable shipping industry. Unfortunately, shipping has attracted a lot of attention for the wrong reasons over the years. Over the years we have heard about the well-known shame and scam of flags of convenience. There is absolutely no argument that a lot of places in the world do not have a seafaring industry as respectable and reputable as Australia's. The consequences that this bill without amendment could have for our shipping industry could be devastating. They could be devastating not only to lives but to our environment. Particularly those of us who are on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which I proudly chair, know that there are numerous examples around this country of what happens when our shipping industry is somehow not as safe as it could be. For a lot of people the first thought that comes to their mind, after loss of life, is the environmental damage along the Great Barrier Reef. It would be absolutely frightening to think what could happen if we were to see any more major catastrophes in shipping.

I want to talk about something close to my heart. For those of you who do not know, Carnarvon is a wonderful diverse little town some 970 kilometres north of Perth. I would give you the exact kilometres but I cannot remember through the haze of looking at the speedo every week on my way to Carnarvon, through Carnarvon and past Carnarvon coming back from Darwin. But, trust me, it is around 970 kilometres. Just north of Carnarvon there is a small operation, Lake MacLeod. It is a salt mine. Fortunately it is still a viable salt mine. It has been a salt mine for a number of years. I would not want to guess how long, but it has been well over 25 years. They export salt to all ports around the world. We had a seafaring accident north of Carnarvon and Lake MacLeod. This was only in the early 1990s. It was not carrying salt, but a ship ran up on the rocks and the massive oil spill that followed actually woke a lot of us up to the devastating effects on our environment. When these massive ships hit rock and run aground it is quite frightening.

But, sadly, we are still seeing maritime disasters, with none more vivid in our minds or our children's minds than that of the cruise liner just off Italy recently. I know that disaster was not created by a drop in the standards of maritime engineers, but the truth of the matter is that one simple mistake in shipping can have a disastrous outcome for the environment and life.

I am sure Mr Wilkie's thoughts on this are pure. There is no doubt about that. But we must amend the bill. We must amend the bill to deliver on its intent—and that is to protect the integrity of our marine engineers and their qualifications. As Senator Thorp touched on, some 23,000 qualifications could be made null and void—if that is the correct terminology—if this bill were to pass without amendment.

Let us look further back into our proud maritime history. Let us not forget that our history is closely related to the global story of people crossing oceans. The first people to engineer ocean-going vessels capable of travelling thousands of kilometres were Pacific Island mariners. They were the first truly maritime people. Like the Torres Strait Islanders, the Pacific mariners used double outrigger canoes and a sail to cross oceans with strong currents. Several thousand years later, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish and other westerners from England and Europe made similar journeys around the globe to the southern hemisphere. From 1600 onwards—and possibly earlier—Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders traded with fishermen from Makassar, Indonesia, who harvested trepang from Australia's northern coastlines, selling them to the Chinese.

I remember not all that long ago, around 2005 or 2006, the Indonesians were still harvesting trepang, but they were harvesting them in Australian waters. If I remember rightly, I was sitting on that side of the chamber and the minister at the time was none other than Senator Ian Macdonald from Queensland. It created enormous dramas. It created massive dramas, particularly in Western Australia. Those poor fishermen were trying to survive, but they were harvesting trepang in our waters. Anyway, to cut a long story short, some changes were made to Australia's offshore rules. We had more planes out there. Then Senator Macdonald was relegated to the backbench. I just want to remind the Senate that the harvesting of trepang by Indonesian fishermen is still recent in our history.

Until 1950 Australia's history with trade, colonisation and settlement was dependent upon maritime sailing voyages. We all know that there is an abundance of diversity in Australia's maritime history. There were the early Dutch mariners, such as Dirk Hartog. We know what happened to poor Dirk off the coast of Western Australia, but there is an island that still bears his name. It is a wonderful island. Of course, there was Abel Tasman and the English navigators, like James Cook and Matthew Flinders, mapping the Australian coastline through to the commercial sealers, whalers and pearlers. And there were explorers like Douglas Mawson. So it is imperative for Australia to never forget the importance of the maritime industry to our trade. We need to have a safe and sustainable maritime industry.

One proud thing that Labor governments have hung their hat on for years and will always hang their hat on is that they are about improving standards in the workforce. We are a party that are proud of the fact that, for the 100-odd years that we have been around, we have stood for the virtues of training and qualifications that provide safe and healthy work areas so that members of the workforce can bid their family farewell in the morning and go to work knowing darn well that they will be back that evening because of the fantastic effort put into occupational health and safety. Occupational health and safety standards are not limited just to the shop floor or to a vehicle; they apply to our ships.

I would like to take the opportunity to remind those who may be listening that the opposition earlier tried to bring this debate to an end so we could not talk about this, but I am proud that I have got my opportunity. Going back to the nineties, and a previous life, I remember that one of the hats I wore was that of chairman of the road division of the Western Australian transport training council and the transport industry training council. I was also on the board. It was made up of employers in the road transport industry; representation from the unions, which was me; and of course educators. Those industry training councils and industry training boards were there so that both arms of the industrial sphere—employers and employees—could work together to deliver training outcomes that would deliver qualifications and trained personnel in the areas of road transport, warehousing and the like. I may be digressing a little bit, Madam Acting Deputy President Stephens; would you please bear with me? We were an integral part of the maritime industry because we wanted safe warehouses and safe transport workers—safe forkies and truckies who got the freight to and from the wharf.

In 1999 or 2000 the then Prime Minister, John Howard—before he got full control of the Senate—could not wait. He had spent years deviously conniving on delivering shortcuts to his mates in big business—shortcuts around training, which was seen as a cost, not as an investment. As a father, I stand here proudly saying that I will always want my kids, your kids—all our kids into the future—to be trained. I want them to know that they can successfully use the machinery that they are in charge of or the machinery that is around them so that they have every opportunity to come home with all fingers and toes still in place. But it was John Howard who delivered on some slimy promise made in the backrooms or the boardrooms to his mates in big business. He said that, if any industry training council or industry training board had the audacity to have union representation on their committee or their board, he and his mates on that side of the chamber—a lot of them who are here now were not here then, but there are still quite a few—would deliver the hammer down on the top of those industry training councils and industry training boards. Their funding would then be ceased unless they removed the union representation. And here we go again.

Whenever there is a blue or an argument about decency and safety in workplaces, it is the workers who work with their employers. I will talk about the employers. The majority of employers are decent hardworking human beings who have taken a big punt in life. Whether they are employers in shipping or delicatessens or wherever they may be, part of employers' working family—it is not only the family structure at home—is their employees. I proudly say that the majority of employers that I have met would be welcome in my home.

It is an insult to working men and women, whether they be the business owner, the production manager, the operations manager, the supervisors or the boys and girls out on the floor or wherever, to think that they are not grown up enough to want to work together to have the safest work environment. Their employer, who had the intestinal fortitude years and years earlier to put everything they owned on the line—let us face it, most employers are not born with the gift of being given a fantastic enterprise—has gone out and done the hard yards. They have taken the big chance. They have put the family home on the line. They are the ones who have had the entrepreneurship to want to do better. They are also fantastic people who treat their workers as part of the family. But that Prime Minister thought it was just fantastic to insult these businesspeople, these business leaders, and union representatives, who were working together to do everything they could to have the safest working environment, by removing funding from the boards unless the union people were removed.

When I was with the industry training council in Western Australia it was headed by a wonderful woman named Debra Goostrey. I see Debra once a year now. Debra is with the Urban Development Institute of Australia. Good luck to them, because they have snaffled a fantastic person. Debra stood on her digs and said very clearly to me and to the employer representation from—what were they called then? They are now the Western Australian Road Transport Association; they had another name, which escapes me at the moment—Transport Forum WA. She said that they would not, and she would not, entertain the thought of losing her chair, which was me, on the road freight division, because of the insult. She would rather cop the loss in funding and she would go out of her way to find funding elsewhere. I can happily say that I was ably supported and abetted by the transport employer body, because they thought it was an absolute insult, a disgraceful episode. Fortunately, that part has been corrected. That ship that was on its side has been righted. We as a nation are now grown up enough—I hope we are grown up enough—to say that if we are going to fix it we are going to fix it together.

So, on that, when it comes to this bill, as I say: Mr Wilkie, it is good of heart—but it cannot go through without amendments. We have to do everything we can to ensure that Australia's maritime industry keeps its absolutely brilliant, high-quality record. We have to work with the union that represents the maritime engineers, and we have to put a few amendments through so that we do not have the unforeseen circumstances that this bill will deliver.

It would be a retrograde step for Australia to introduce outdated standards contrary to modern training practices and inconsistent with global standards. Time-served progression is contrary to current Australian government policy reform directions. The Australian government has committed to introducing competency based progression in Australian apprenticeships and traineeships—something that we hold to very proudly—and there is no embarrassment for me to say, as a Labor senator: the sooner we pump out more Australian trainees and Australian apprentices the better. As a nation we have found, over the years, that sometimes, sadly, it has been easier for employers to go overseas to seek to fill certain job descriptions. I have absolutely no dramas with a Western Australian senator saying that this nation was built on migration and that, sadly, we lack some of the skills we need. But I go one step further. We lack those skills because of the likes of John Howard's attitude to training and, unfortunately, some of those in industries in Australia who think that it is just so much easier to go overseas, rather than to create a training scheme and think: 'In four or five years time, I want Australian kids in those jobs; I want Australian trainees; I want Australian apprentices. I want to give Australian kids every opportunity to seek employment in their land.' And then there is no embarrassment in topping up with foreign workers.