Mr TANNER(10.41 a.m.) —I wish to make some very brief remarks on this report. It is the sequel to the famous Ships of shame report and I commend the committee on producing this subsequent report with respect to this very important issue.

The report reinforces the message that emerged from the original Ships of shame inquiry, namely that the operation of particular vessels in Australian coastal waters produces some very serious problems that Australia has yet to fully address. These problems include extreme exploitation of workers. Workers are sometimes bashed, denied food, put in outrageous circumstances, deprived of wages or, when they are paid, they are paid at an extremely low level.

Some of the horrific stories that have emerged with respect to the treatment of workers on many of the vessels that ply Australian and international waters are of great concern. They are Dickensian circumstances that in most of the world—certainly in Western world economic activity—were eliminated a long time ago with, perhaps, one or two exceptions such as certain types of outwork.

The prevalence of ships of shame exposes us to very serious safety problems. The reports of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority indicate that there are a substantial number of ships serving in the Australian industry internationally and registered in flag of convenience states that regularly have very serious safety deficiencies that inevitably, from time to time, result in disaster. These deficiencies are of particular concern not only for the lives of those on board the vessels but also, in certain circumstances, for those in the immediate vicinity if the vessels are in port—for example, the risk of fire could be a serious hazard to others, apart from the crewmen on the vessel.

The environmental concerns are particularly of great concern to Australia as a nation. We have got such a vast coastline, and so much of that coastline is of extreme importance to our tourism industry and the broader environment. The Great Barrier Reef is an obvious example, but is one of only a number of examples.

In recent times we have had disasters, such as the Sanko Harvest and the Kirki, that indicate just how serious these threats are and the sort of damage that could be done to our marine environment and our tourism industry by a disaster involving a flag of convenience vessel: the possibilities really beggar the imagination. These are very serious issues for Australia. Thus far, in spite of the best efforts of AMSA, which does do a very good job in inspecting vessels and enforcing regulations, we have failed to fully grapple with the issue.

In that context, as the shadow minister for transport I and the opposition generally have considerable concerns with respect to the recommendations of the recent inquiry which is still the subject of discussions between the minister and the various parties interested in Australian shipping. It proposes to abolish cabotage. This means that the extent to which flag of convenience vessels, and foreign registered vessels generally, will be able to operate in Australian waters will be significantly increased because domestic routes will be opened up to foreign involvement.

So initially we have a concern that, as well as vessels engaged in international trade being a serious risk to the Australian environment and to workers engaged on them—and to the Australian community generally—we will have a situation where vessels of that type will also be able to trade in the domestic Australian shipping industry. This is of particular concern because in reality this amounts to the first introduction of guest workers into the Australian economy, something that is common in many parts of the world, particularly in the Middle East and in some parts of Europe.

What it means is that foreign workers, paid perhaps $200 a week or maybe less—but very unlikely to be much more and substantially less than the equivalent rate for Australian workers—will be able to work in the domestic Australian transport industry. The fundamental flaw with the notion of abolishing cabotage is that you cannot really stop there. If you are running a trucking company or a private rail line or even a charter aviation company, and the domestic shipping industry is able to employ foreign workers at substantially lower rates of pay than the Australian award rates, then it is difficult to see why you should be discriminated against and why you should not be able to do the same thing.

The inevitable logic of allowing the open slather employment of foreign workers at a fraction of the rate that is provided for in the Australian award in domestic shipping is that you do the same thing for people who are driving trucks or driving trains or flying planes on the equivalent route because, even though there is a distinction between the freight task that is performed, there is a substantial competitive overlap.

That can be seen in numerous examples. In the choices that are made by people who ship cargo there is a substantial competitive overlap. So if there is a change in the balance favourable to shipping because it can employ people at much, much cheaper rates than the standard Australian award rates, the end result is that there will be a shift.

Others who compete with shipping in different transport modes, particularly in rail but also to a lesser extent road transport, will then be entitled to say, `If they can have cheap foreign labour, why can't we?' Australia has a labour market regulatory structure that applies to our domestic economy. Shipping between Australian ports is part of our domestic transport system, part of our domestic economy, and should therefore be part of our domestic labour market regulatory structure.

In closing, I will just refer to a few of the recommendations of this sequel to the Ships of shame report, and I certainly would urge the government to pay very careful considerations to them. One recommendation in the report is that ILO convention 147 should be ratified by the government. I would certainly support that.

The report also recommends a detailed system of inspection for vessels whose owners are applying for single voyage permits or continuous voyage permits, which provide the flexibility in the cabotage arrangements and which mean a significant number of foreign vessels are plying our coast in the domestic trade where no domestic ship is available. This should only occur after a thorough examination and inspection of the vessel concerned to ensure that it is safe and that you do not have a serious environmental disaster or safety hazard to those on board or to other parties.

Another recommendation is that insurance requirements applying to shipping be tightened to ensure that the protection for the Australian community is maximised.

I commend the committee for its work on the report. I certainly believe the government should take its recommendations seriously and it should not implement the recommendations of the Manser report with respect to the abolition of cabotage. I believe that would be contrary to the whole notion of labour market regulation in Australia. We are a nation of citizens who have certain rights and obligations with respect to our labour that do not apply to non-Australian citizens, people who are domiciled in other countries, other than through appropriate mechanisms—through immigration law and visas and the like. I commend the report to the committee and to the government.

Debate (on motion by Mr Andrews) adjourned.