Mr HOLLIS (12:06 PM) —I am pleased to be speaking once more on legislation dealing with shipping. I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, will be very interested in what I have to say. As was noted in the minister's second reading speech, the International Maritime Conventions Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 will amend four acts and consequential amendments to two other acts. Taken by themselves, each of the amendments contained in this bill is relatively minor, but taken as a package they represent an important updating of the four acts. The member for Petrie, who unfortunately has left, misunderstood what the member for Batman said about workers—that is, that there are very few Australian jobs in Australian shipping. I do not want to get into an argument about who has done what and who has done the most about shipping, but it was under a Labor government that the record breaking Ships of shame report was produced. That report put pollution and shipping on the international agenda. Also, the member for Petrie said that it was this government that was introducing a lot of these amendments. A lot of these amendments or issues are consequential to the international movement, such as schedule 1—which deals with the increase in rates—and also schedule 3. So do not get too carried away about who has done what. As the shadow minister has outlined, we on this side are not opposing this legislation. We see it as a continuation of improvements of the maritime conventions, bringing them into line with modern-day practices. The shadow minister has moved an amendment to the bill which I fully support.

The government does have a case to answer, because for six years it has neglected the shipping industry, preferring instead to attack the Maritime Union of Australia and leaving our coasts, ports and environment exposed to pollution and deadly imported diseases. As an island nation, shipping is of vital importance to us. We should be leading the world in ensuring better standards for shipping, both nationally and internationally. Schedule 1 will provide a simple method for future increases in liability limits. It is all very well putting huge liability costs on shipowners but they must always be able to obtain insurance coverage. I recall when we were doing the first Ships of shame report that we were very concerned about the possibility of lack of insurance. No-one wants accidents, but they do happen and there must be a reasonable level of compensation available.

Hopefully, with Australia being a party to the 1996 protocol, it will add another country to the list so that after 90 days at least the required 10 countries can become party to it. Today I think only four have signed up. We often hear about oil pollution at sea, but many would argue that damage from a chemical spill would be even more dangerous. Just think of some of the dangerous chemicals being conveyed around our coastline, like sulphuric acid, petrol and caustic soda. At least when you see birds covered with oil—and dreadful as that is— or the coastline polluted in black, you know an oil spill has occurred and remedial action can be taken. Chemicals are often the invisible pollutants. Their long-term effects can be more damaging than an oil spill.

In many respects schedule 3 is the most important. It updates MARPOL. For too long, ships—both large and small—have used the seas as dumping grounds for garbage. In fact, the passage of a luxury liner was too often marked by a string of garbage trailing the ship. This is no longer acceptable. This is especially important in more remote parts of the world, as in the case of the increasing number of ships in the waters around Antarctica. That is why the protocol on environment protection to the Antarctic Treaty is so important. But it is not always the large ships that in the past have been responsible for dumping garbage. I welcome the requirement that Australian ships of 400 tonnes or more and certified to carry 15 people or more will be required to have a ship board waste management plan and to carry and maintain a garbage record book. These provisions are designed to complement existing provisions restricting the disposal of garbage from a ship and are intended to ensure that our seas are not polluted by ship garbage. In addition, every ship of 12 metres or more in length will be required to display notices to inform passengers and crew of restrictions that apply to the disposal of garbage from the ship.

Just as today it is totally unacceptable for rubbish to be thrown from the window of a car—something not so uncommon a couple of years ago—so must the community understand that it is unequally unacceptable behaviour to drop garbage, however defined, from a ship large or small. I am pleased that the bill will give maritime surveyors from AMSA the power, indeed the duty, to direct a ship to a suitable discharge facility. If, when conducting shipping inspections, they believe that the amount of waste on board at the time of the inspection, such as oily waste or garbage, means a ship would have to discharge some of that waste at sea, they can now require the waste to be discharged from the ship at a suitable discharge facility. Such a facility exists at my own port, the port of Kembla. Indeed, it is pumped into tankers and then disposed of at a Wollongong treatment centre. Wollongong is one of the 50 ports with such facilities around Australia.

The prevention of the discharge of pollution, especially oily waste, has been long championed by the MUA which, for many years, has run a campaign—showing our beautiful beaches and the beautiful people who often use the beaches covered in black oil—called `Safer ships, cleaner seas'. To highlight this aspect, a surf carnival near Geraldton in Western Australia was sponsored by the MUA when there was a conference there recently. This campaign, `Safer ships, cleaner seas', started after an incident involving the Greek registered tanker Kirki, which broke up in moderate seas off the coast of Western Australia—indeed, the whole front of the bow fell away—in 1991, spilling all of its 50,000 tonnes of light crude oil on crayfish waters and Western Australia's northern beaches. Luckily, in many respects, it was light crude, not heavy. As with so many aspects of the maritime industry, it has been the MUA that has been at the forefront of new standards—new standards for seafarers, who must work on rust buckets and ships of shame, and new standards for shipping and the environment.

I have said many times that in Australia we must be extra vigilant as so many of these ships carrying dangerous chemicals or other substances pass through our most important tourist attraction, the Great Barrier Reef. The reef covered with sludge oil would not be the renowned tourist attraction it is today. It has been the campaign by the MUA that has ensured the survival of the reef in its pristine state for the benefit of all Australians and international visitors. Of course, all the requirements of this legislation depend on the quality of shipping using Australian shipping lanes. It is true that many of the real ships of shame no longer use our coastline but they are still there using international lanes. We will not tolerate ships of shame in Australian waters.

AMSA has been vigilant on ship conditions in recent years. But our former colleague Peter Morris, the chairman of the International Commission on Shipping's inquiry into ship safety, Ships, Slaves and Competition, said recently when he released the findings of his report that, although the condition of ships has improved, in many cases the conditions of seafarers have got worse. As a member of the board of missions to the seamen of Port Kembla, I know this from personal experience. It not only occurs in ports like Port Kembla; recently there was the case of a cruise liner in Britain, where the conditions were so bad that the crew went on strike. Although everything might have been fine for the passengers, who were paying large amounts of money to enjoy all the facilities, the facilities for the crew and the conditions in which they had to exist were absolutely deplorable. Too often, on the ships that I see, the conditions and food are deplorable. The practice of multi-crewing is used to control the crews. Do the crew members dare to make any complaints? Occasionally they contact the International Transport Federation. Sometimes they will contact the local chaplain at the mission or even the MUA. Too often, crew members are too scared, too frightened and too intimidated to complain. It is a method of control to have mixed crews comprising different nationalities, often speaking different languages. To top it off, on the bridge the remainder of the crew comprise another nationality.

The waters off the Australian coast or some other remote ocean of the world often become the grave of crew members who have the courage to complain about their treatment and conditions, and that of others. If a seafarer in Port Kembla or Sydney makes a complaint and the next port of call is Brisbane, Mackay or some other remote port, often that seafarer will not arrive at the destination. No-one questions the disappearance or records it. It happens far more often than we would like to believe. That is why I believe this government was wrong not to accept the recommendation of the then Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform, now known as the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts. The committee, with a majority of government members, recommended that—and I quote:

Of course, this government would not accept that recommendation. They do not accept that seafarers' welfare organisations should operate or receive assistance in a way that is different from other welfare organisations. But these organisations are different and they have to operate differently because of their values. The government said:

There you have it: a government that squanders millions on advertising to promote its own policies and spends thousands on cheap political witch-hunts of former Labor figures and a government that will give its mates contracts worth millions but will not spend a few thousand to make life more bearable, even livable, for seafarers.

I have already given the shadow minister notice that, when Labor gains power at the next election, even if I am not a member of parliament, I will vigorously pursue this issue with him, or with whoever the new minister might be. This is not an expensive proposal but it is one that does have immense benefits for Australia. It will make life bearable for the often lonely, forgotten seafarers from Third World countries. It is no exaggeration to say that it could perhaps be the difference between life and death.

I have seen over the years much legislation introduced concerning shipping—more covering shipping than the welfare of seafarers. Shipping in our waters in the main has improved. This legislation will help to protect the environment. It is time that we looked at more legislation to improve the lives of those who go down to the sea in ships. As the shadow minister said, it is important for Australia, as an island nation, to have a good, adequate shipping industry. It has been one of my great regrets during my time in this parliament that, under both sides of politics, we have witnessed the decline in Australian flag shipping. That is a matter of great regret and it is a matter that Australia will eventually pay a price for.

I am pleased that we have seen many of the rust buckets if not totally removed from the world's shipping lanes then at least removed from the shipping lanes around Australia. What I would hope to see though is the conditions for those who work on ships improved. I want to see the welfare of seafarers at such centres as the mission at Port Kembla and missions throughout Australia improved. I think there is a responsibility for governments to make a contribution to this and it would not be at a great cost. Our coastline is too precious to us to allow some of these rust buckets that trundle around the coast to continue to do so. I hope that this legislation will go some small way towards improving that and, with the amendment moved by the shadow minister, I welcome these bills before the House.