Mr SIDEBOTTOM (5:27 PM) —Judging by some of the provisions contained in the Navigation Amendment (Employment of Seafarers) Bill 1998 , it is little more than a continued ideological attack on trade unionism in general and the maritime workers union in particular. Under the guise of introducing greater flexibility to the industry, the government is using the principle of individual contracts between seafarers and their employers as a means of removing seafarers' conditions. That it will compromise their safety and the safety of Australia's fragile marine environment does not seem to count.

Members on my side of the House will not be surprised, of course, to find that, although Mr Anderson, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, is now responsible for the legislation, his hand was not the instigator. The 1998 bill is the work of none other than the man who presided over the debacle on Australia's waterfront during 1998; the same minister who shamelessly sided with Patrick against its own work force; the man who not only took sides in the dispute but unashamedly helped devise a battle plan against the workers. The minister for undercover and covert operations! The same minister who seems to take considerable pride in un-Australian industrial relations practices. The same minister for `insensitivity' who slipped into Burnie during the last election and suggested that redundant workers pack their bags and head to Queensland if things did not improve in the region. The electors of Braddon did not forget his disgraceful record in regard to the waterfront dispute, and I echo their sentiments.

Is it any wonder then that anyone coming upon this bill would become suspicious of its underlying motives. The problem we have is that what Mr Reith says and what Mr Reith does are two different things. It is with this in mind that I would like to go through some of the aspects of the proposed amendments. I believe we will see worsening employment conditions that pose serious safety concerns, again not only on board the ships that ply our coasts but for our marine environment.

Seafarers have been employed under an industry rather than company employment system known as the Seafarers Engagement System—SES—or the roster. This was established in 1964 and is operated by placing seafarers on a register, and then being assigned to available ships based on the order of registration. The SES gives effect to Australia's international obligations under International Labour Organisation Convention No. 9. The government gave notice of denouncing this on 31 August 1998 but, in so doing and not ratifying ILO 179, it is in contravention of ILO Convention 9.

The SES was administered by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority—AMSA—until closed by this government on 1 March 1998. The move to company employment and removal of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority in administering the SES is a further contravention of ILO Convention 9. The actual terms and conditions under which seafarers are employed on Australian ships are regulated by the Navigation Act 1912. These conditions will be abolished or amended under the bill.

ILO Convention 9 deals with the supervision of articles of agreement and the provision of facilities for finding employment for seafarers. Article 2 of the convention establishes that the business of finding employment for seafarers not be carried out for pecuniary gain and directs that the ratifying country prohibit and punish such violations. Article 4 requires that a public employment office be established and maintained in order to find employment for seafarers without charge. Item 9 of the bill, which repudiates articles 2 and 4, will also mean that Australia will be in contravention of ILO Convention No. 9, article 2.

Let us look at some of the government's proposed amendments and repeal provisions. The government wishes to abolish the system of articles of agreement contained in ILO Convention No. 22 and replace them with company contracts between the employer and either an individual seafarer or entire crew. The articles of agreement traditionally set out in some detail the obligation of seafarers and the shipowner and provided both with certainty as to conditions of employment. The repeal of this obligation will have several consequences. There will no longer be a requirement, for instance, for the employer of seafarers to be the shipowner. This provision, along with item 5 which removes the prohibition on labour hire firms supplying seafarers, makes it possible therefore to have labour hire firms employing seafarers and supplying these to shipowners. The problem here is that labour hire firms, unlike shipowners, may not necessarily know much about the industry and are unlikely to have a high incentive to ensure that the seafarers are of the highest trained quality.

This is no idle reservation. It has been well documented in other countries that such practices lead to poorly skilled and trained seafarers being hired by labour hire firms who win contracts to supply labour from shipowners. Inevitably, this has had serious implications for occupational health and safety on foreign ships. The seafaring industry has risks that are inherent to the unique nature of the industry, as has been tragically demonstrated by past disasters. The absence of appropriately qualified, trained and responsible seafarers on board a ship can lead to safety breaches and such breaches have the potential to lead to multiple loss of life.

Another consequence of removing the obligation for articles of agreement is that AMSA will no longer be able to have access to contemporaneous records of service of seafarers. It is intended that employers will keep such records and inform AMSA as need of service. Given that AMSA will have no ability to independently check the information, employers such as labour hire firms can manipulate the employee records without fear of independent random audits of service based on the articles of agreement transmitted to AMSA every time a seafarer commences work.

In the Ships of shame report on ship safety by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure of December 1992, it is constantly reiterated that the quality of crew training is a central factor in maintaining ship safety. It is therefore imperative that a seafarer be adequately certified as qualified for the work performed and that adequate training be provided and scrutinised by an independent party. The effect of this bill will be to interfere with the certification of a seafarer's qualifications by abolishing the articles of agreement system and the discharge system. These systems provide for an independent audit of the seafarer's qualifications.

The bill proposes that in future an employer will provide a statement of service containing prescribed information relating to that employment. The information is required for the purposes of calculating service to meet the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation's Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping. Concerns have been rightly raised in relation to any possible abuse of the proposed new system of calculating service. For example, will any employer rigorously inquire into a seafarer's qualifications or will they simply accept those certificates on face value? It is highly improbable that an investigation of doubtful certificates would be carried out if an employee is willing to work for less pay. The Ships of shame inquiry heard evidence that:

. . . the possession of forged certificates poses problems for several reasons . . . (it may) suggest that a crew member does not have the requisite training and experience necessary to perform his/her tasks properly, so affecting the safe operation of the ship.

The 1998 Ship safe report expressed concern at what it called:

. . . the continued availability of false certificates and the lack of appropriate certificates held by some crew members.

It has been reliably reported that for as little as $US300 it is possible to purchase qualification certificates and that internationally there are many sailing on worthless papers.

Research submitted to the inquiry into the Australian Maritime Safety Authority annual report of 1996-97 indicated that the major cause of ship accidents had been human error or substandard actions. Safety is a key aspect of life on board ships. This is not only a question of proper training and qualifications; it is also about recognition of what is termed the social aspect of life at sea.

As is often mentioned in maritime industry investigations, the seafaring industry is unique. Seafarers live in a working environment quite removed from that experienced by any other employee. The industry is dangerous and the exploitation of overseas crew members is widespread and well documented. The industry, in my view, needs regulation as well as competition.

The three Ships of shame reports into ship safety by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure highlighted the working conditions of crew members and their treatment by owners and ships' officers. The committee heard evidence that the extent of this maltreatment extended to things such as bashing of crew members by ships' officers; denial of food and provision of inadequate food; under- or non-payment of wages and overtime; maintenance of two pay books, one for show, the other real; inadequate accommodation and ablution facilities; sexual molestation and rape; depriving access to appropriate medical care; and crew members being considered as `dispensables'.

The first report noted:

. . . crews from non traditional maritime nations are those which work in inadequate conditions, are poorly paid and whose living quarters are substandard . . . mistreated crew members are reluctant to complain as they will be black listed by crewing agencies and will be refused work as a seaman . . . crew members have often had to pay a fee to crewing agencies in order to secure employment and are reluctant to jeopardise their job security because of unemployment at home and the substantial investment made. This fee can be as high as $US 4000.

I notice that Minister Reith in his second reading speech said that detailed employment provisions in the current act were probably justified by conditions in the shipping industry 100 years ago. I submit, given the damming evidence about crew welfare presented to the Ships of shame reports, that this is in fact an ongoing, contemporary problem. Indeed, in the Ships of shame—a sequel inquiry of 1995 it was noted:

Substandard ships and practices still exist, crews are still being beaten, harassed, abused and deprived of basic human rights.

The 1998 Ship safe report concluded:

. . . in all the focus areas before the committee in this inquiry, crew welfare appears to have progressed the least in the 1990s and much remains in need of improvement.

My side of the House contends that many of the government's amendments are inimical to achieving this aim, both in terms of securing genuine welfare provisions and monitoring qualifications and seafaring conditions.

While accepting the need for competition in the industry, we do not accept that this means watering down seafarers' conditions by accepting the possibility of minimum international standards, and certainly not at a time when safety and other standards for seafarers have deteriorated to the extent outlined in the reports I have mentioned throughout this speech.

Dismantling the fundamental standards of protection that exist already does not make sense. Items 3, 13, 27 and 48 refer to the Marine Council that was established under section 424 of the Navigation Act 1912. The council's principal role is to assess the suitability of people for employment at sea. Serious breaches of the code of conduct are referred to the council which considers the person's suitability for engagement as a seafarer. The Marine Council reports through the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's annual report. It is the intention of the bill to abolish the Marine Council and its functions, but this has serious implications for seafarers' working conditions.

The bill is based on seafarers changing their employment status to that of permanent full-time employees of shipowners. The government expects employers to take over the role of the Marine Council in determining matters related above. The independent third party will no longer exist to determine the question of the suitability of a seafarer.

Criticisms of this bill rightly highlight the potential conflict of interest inherent in the situation. Surely the employer's incentive to ensure quality crew is tempered by a desire to have low-paid flexible workers. Unfortunately, the bill does not require permanent ongoing company employment.

Further casualisation of the work force continues to occur in the shipping industry, yet this work force will no longer be regulated. It is feasible that those who have in the past been deregistered, or who in the future commit acts which would lead them to be deregistered, will not be legally prevented from working as seafarers.

The current system for training, registering and monitoring seafaring skills, medical health and conduct has led to Australian seafarers being regarded internationally as amongst the best and safest in the world. The Marine Council has played an important role in Australian seafarers attaining this hard-earned reputation. It is strange policy to abolish a successful instrument and replace it with nothing.

Item 9 of the bill will remove the provisions that prohibit the demanding or receiving of a fee for providing a seafarer with employment. I notice that Minister Anderson in his second reading speech claimed that abuses such as crimping were only relevant in the days of sailing ships. Evidence before the 1996-1997 annual report of AMSA made it quite clear that crimping is, in fact, relatively widespread. In the MUA submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform in mid-1998, it was stated that the lifting of the prohibition meant that jobs could be filled on the basis of ability to pay rather than on merit has exists under the current Navigation Act. The MUA submission is worth quoting. It states:

. . . the removal of this prohibition can only lead to the encouragement of under-skilled seafarers bidding to obtain positions on ships. It also opens the possibility of third world labour bidding to be placed on board Australian ships.

Item 10 of the bill will remove a longstanding prohibition on ships crews handling cargo or ballast whilst in an Australian port. The MUA is right to argue that the proposed amendments pose a threat both to their members and to the environment. Cleaning ships' holds is a vexed problem because such routine operations on board ships are a bigger polluting menace than accidents like oil spills. Given the government's intention to deregulate the labour market in the industry and gut the oversight functions of the Marine Council, the potential for environmental problems flowing from this only increases. The handling of cargo is dangerous and skilled work. Safety and expertise are essential. Removal of the prohibition will leave the way open to seafarers who are not trained in stevedoring skills being required to attempt such work.

It is as plain as day that the government's intention is to water down the employment conditions of seafarers. The application of the Workplace Relations Act in this unique and dangerous industry is doing little more than returning the industry to the old days when individual seafarers were at the mercy of the shipowner or manning agent.

The Workplace Relations Act is hardly a raging success at the moment in industries and amongst workers with nothing like the social and safety constraints of seafarers. It really defies credibility to suggest that comprehensive equity of contract could exist between seafarer and employer in this industry under the deregulated conditions intended by this legislation.

I come from an island with a long and proud maritime history and industry. Its reliance on the sea for its commerce, transport and recreation is enormous. Anything that impinges on this must be scrutinised carefully. Marine safety is paramount. Tasmanians must feel secure that the ships that ply our waters are safe, the crews manning the vessels are well-trained, and that on board practices are of the highest international standards. The introduction of more flag of convenience ships in the name of competition and deregulation, and an open seas policy, is more reason to worry than to be thankful.

Maritime reform has occurred and continues to occur. Deregulation for ideology's sake is not reform and, in this bill's case, is little more than a ruse to attack the conditions and collective strengths of Australian seafarers.

Finally, the current Navigation Act provides a sound, transparent and internationally acceptable standard for a sound and well-regulated shipping industry. I believe that is the very basis on which to negotiate more flexible and enterprise based employment arrangements between the parties involved.