Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (11:24 AM) —I rise to speak on the International Maritime Conventions Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 and in doing so foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment. As those who have taken an interest in the bill will understand, it seeks to amend six acts of parliament related to Australia's compliance with international conventions. I clearly indicate that the opposition will support the bill. I understand that the government has circulated amendments to the bill, and I can advise that the opposition supports these amendments.

With that background I will now seek briefly to address the details of the bill and then go to some of the broader matters encompassed in my second reading amendment which go to the importance of shipping to Australia's future. As one who has studied the bill understands, the various pieces of legislation are largely facilitative and technical in nature. I will deal firstly with the amendments to the limitation of liability under the Maritime Claims Act 1989. The 1976 liability convention, which deals with the liability for maritime claims, allows a shipowner or salvor to set limits for the amount of damages they can be required to pay for damage caused by the ship, the shipowner or the salvor or their employee or agent. The limits are set out in the convention. These limits were amended by the protocol of 1976, which goes to the convention on limitation of liabilities, which was about increasing liability limits and seeking to provide a simpler method for future increases of liability limits. So it is all about facilitating easy government action on these fronts. Schedule 1 of the bill will amend this act to implement the 1976 liability protocol. Clearly, the opposition supports the intent of the government on this front.

I turn to the amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1978—referred to, I suppose, in a shorthand way, as the intervention act. This act gives the Australian Maritime Safety Authority important powers to take measures to protect the sea from pollution by oil and other substances discharged from ships. I think it is fair to say that, in terms of the development of our community in more recent times, there is an expectation by the Australian community and the international community that we actually do more on this front. This is reflected in the intent of the government's legislation today.

Section 9 of that act relates to the taking of measures under the 1973 protocol, which goes to the issue of intervention on the high seas in cases of pollution by substances other than oil. An annex to this protocol lists the polluting substances other than oil that pollution prevention measures can be taken in relation to. Schedule 2 of the bill amends the intervention act to implement the list of these substances as approved by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation in July 1996. Again, I think we all understand the need to continue to update our legislative intent in order to cover all possible spills and difficulties with respect to the operation of shipping in Australia's waters.

I turn to the amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, described in shorthand as the pollution prevention act. Schedule 3 of the bill amends the pollution prevention act, which implements the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, better known as MARPOL. These amendments include a range of changes. For example, firstly, they remove the requirement to include the text of conventions in schedules to the act, which can be laborious and difficult in a legislative sense as things change internationally. Secondly, they implement amendments to 73/78 of MARPOL on categorisation of liquids, pollution by packaged substances and disposal of garbage. Thirdly, they introduce changes to incident reporting arrangements. Fourthly—and importantly, I might say—they provide for Australian Federal Police officers to be inspectors under the act to avoid the need for separate paperwork and approval at the time of incidents, which is all about enabling Australia to do a better job with respect to trying to prevent these incidents rather than just acting after the event. This will ensure that we can put people in place at short notice to undertake the requirements with respect to inspectorial powers. Fifthly, and finally, the changes will enable Australian Maritime Safety Authority officers to require the discharge of waste from a ship to a reception facility.

The bill also makes a range of amendments in relation to penalties and offences under the Pollution Prevention Act. These include, firstly, providing that any person, other than the shipowner or master, who is responsible for unlawful discharge is guilty of an offence; secondly, requiring the owner of a ship to report an oil pollution where a master has not done so; thirdly, ensuring the owner or master of the ship is guilty of an offence if the pollution damage resulted from their negligence; and, fourthly and finally, providing that the same penalty applies to discharge of harmful substances in all parts of the act. Obviously, the whole intent of the bill is action to ensure that we tighten up with respect to whoever is responsible for the discharge of the substances into our seas. It is also to make sure that, where they are clearly negligent, we have sufficient power and penalties in place to try and guarantee that people are more than ever responsible for their own negligence and acts, in some instances, of wilful environmental damage.

I note that the government has moved amendments to the bill that go to this section. These amendments, interestingly, are in response to a decision in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. That decision opens an interpretation that allows a shipowner or master to escape responsibility for damage from discharges into the sea. Without going into the technicality, the act currently allows relief if this discharge was a consequence of damage to the ship. The New South Wales case, importantly, extended the interpretation of a similar term to say damage could cover `wear and tear' on a ship. It is therefore possible that a shipowner or master could avoid responsibility for discharges from their ill-kept or ill-maintained vessel. That is very much an international problem with respect to some of the foreign flag vessels that move around the international community.

That is why, from an opposition's point of view, we have always had a problem about the wilful negligence of the current government with respect to opening up more and more Australian shipping lines to the use of continuous and single voyage permits to some of these ships that could do damage to the Australian environment, yet alone continue to take away jobs from Australians. As a result of this New South Wales decision, they have to face up to their requirement to engage in good management practices with respect to the vessels that they are responsible for. This is clearly counter to the intent of the act. Therefore, the opposition supports these amendments to head off that type of interpretation.

I continue with the amendments to the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1963. Schedule 4 of this bill amends the cables and pipelines act to reflect the terminology of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea rather than the superseded 1958 Convention on the High Seas. The amendments provide that the act applies in the exclusive economic zone and the high seas as defined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea rather than the high seas as defined in the previous convention. In some cases the protocols being facilitated by this bill have not taken effect because they require sufficient international signatories. The commencement date of the bill will provide for this. It is also about making sure that other countries in addition to Australia face up to their responsibility to sign onto the intent of this international law. It is against that background that the opposition stands in support of the bill and the amendments as proposed by the government.

While the opposition does not see the changes embodied in the amendments in the bill as contentious, we do see as very serious the direction the Australian government has taken us on the coastal shipping front since its election in 1996. We agree that the changes in the bill are necessary to implement international conventions that are important to maritime and shipping safety regulation, and I must say that at least on this occasion the government is prepared to face up to its international responsibilities. Time and time again, on most international issues, the Australian community has been confronted with a government that has contempt and disregard for international developments with respect to many aspects which affect the direction of the Australian community and its international responsibilities. Examples are the government's attitude to the ILO and United Nations processes in general and, in more recent times, the difficulties we have in relation to the complex issue of Kyoto and our responsibilities on the greenhouse front.

On this occasion the government has accepted its international responsibilities, but it is time that this government accepted that we are part of an international community. We should face up to our responsibilities, not only on the question of shipping but also on a range of complex issues. That is what is expected of a decent country that is prepared to shoulder its responsibilities to actually lead in very complex and difficult international matters.

I am pleased to say again in this chamber that the opposition is totally committed to the safety and efficiency of the shipping industry. Other speakers on our side of the chamber will also make comment on these matters. We regard the shipping industry as vital to the future of Australia, which has been and always will be a trading nation. For Australia, globalisation is a fact of life. For Australia to be an active participant in the international community, we must make sure that we have adequate Australian shipping in place to guarantee that we compete on an equal footing, and also to guarantee that in circumstances such as those of East Timor we have in place not only a decent defence force but also a shipping service which enables us to support our defence forces in case of need.

That is what the debate today is about—not just our international responsibilities in shipping but also our responsibilities, as a nation, to both the Australian people and the international community, including people in our region. We believe that Australia has a key role to play on the international scene, firstly to ensure that world shipping is safe. That is our responsibility as a trading nation and a nation that expects to be respected in the international community. It is our responsibility as a nation that has always wanted to box above its weight. We should not be content with boxing above our weight, so to speak, in the swimming pool, on the netball court or on the cricket or rugby field. We should also do so when it comes to our responsibilities to guarantee that world shipping is safe, because protection of our environment is just as important to Australia, in an international sense, as winning the Ashes on the cricket field in England.

Our problem is that we have a responsibility that is currently being neglected by the Prime Minister, who in essence believes that our international responsibilities start and finish at Lord's or at the Sydney football stadium, when it comes to cricket and rugby. When it comes to our responsibilities as a decent nation on issues such as leading in respect of defence or shipping, we are, frankly, a second-class nation. At the moment, that is how we are seen beyond Australian shores by many international organisations.

I would argue therefore that the bill before the House today is not only about ensuring that our shipping is safe, it is also about Australia making a contribution in an international sense to our local environment, the international environment and the interests of Australia and all nation states.

Australia has an intrinsic vested interest in this objective, because of our geographic isolation and the fact that we are an island nation, totally reliant on shipping and aviation services to access other markets. The sustainability of that access is dependent on how we develop and grow the quality of transport links like shipping. It is not a second order issue; it is a first order issue that requires further attention by the Commonwealth parliament. I would remind the House that the opposition is the sole party with a commitment to sustainable safe and efficient shipping in terms of Australia's exporters and importers. I say that because, in spite of all the lip service from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services about his policies for exporters, he is committed only to the lowest cost denominator, not to a sustainable industry. As we have witnessed in many sectors, the lowest cost service is not usually the best. Too often we see safety standards eroded or undermined merely to get costs down. The House should understand that reducing standards actually increases costs in the medium to long term. Time and time again this has been proven with respect to this current government's policies. This is clearly the case with the actions of the current minister and his policies for the Australian shipping industry. Rather than making frequent calls trying to intimidate journalists in his own electorate or in rural Australia—as occurred, for example, in Dubbo in the last week with respect to the Dubbo Liberal and his attempt to intimidate and interfere with the media—the minister should face up to his responsibilities to actually spend a little bit of time worrying about his responsibilities on the transport front and shipping industry policy in Australia.

The shipping policy of the Howard government has clearly been one of taking risks with the quality of shipping, Australia's environment, Australia's defence and Australian industry in the narrow pursuit of the bottom line, without regard to Australia's national interests. It is important to remember that the coastal shipping trade is part of the domestic transport task, in the same manner as trucking, rail and domestic and international aviation services. The government have said that they have no interest in Australian companies being suppliers of shipping services. I am pleased to say that the opposition does have an interest in Australian companies being suppliers of shipping services. Unlike the current government, we do not merely see Australia purely as a buyer of shipping services. We should play in the international scene as a supplier, not just a buyer, of shipping services.

The House should consider that policy in the context of any other Australian domestic transport mode. The Navigation Act of 1912 regulates the ships and conditions for operating on the coast, to ensure quality and equality with other workers and operators in the interstate transport industry. Single and continuous voyage permits were intended to be used as a temporary licensing mechanism. They were designed correctly to help shippers move product when a licensed ship was unavailable, by providing a temporary permit to a foreign ship. When operating under such a permit, a foreign ship—and the House should not forget this—does not have to meet the normal licensing requirements that we expect as a nation; for example, the operators are not required to meet the same crew requirements or apply Australian conditions.

The truth is and the facts show—and it is reflected in the Hansard of this week with respect to a question that I placed on notice and the government's response to it—that more than ever the current government is using these provisions to bypass the usual labour market tests for visas with respect to work in this industry. The evidence of the government's misuse of these permits goes to provisions clearly aimed at increasing the use of foreign ships and cheaper guest crews at the expense of jobs for Australians.

In answer to my question on notice No. 2556, the minister has confirmed the increasing use of temporary licensing on foreign ships to move our coastal cargo. In 1995-96 the then Labor government issued 421 single voyage permits to carry a total of 3.2 million tonnes of coastal cargo. In the financial year 1999-2000, the minister approved 629 single voyage permits to carry 7.3 million tonnes of coastal cargo. In the same year, he issued 73 continuous voyage permits, carrying about 0.7 million tonnes. The Labor government did not issue one continuous voyage permit. We actually care about Australian coastal shipping and, more importantly, we actually care about jobs for Australians. And that is what it is about—it is about jobs for Australians, not the support of foreign shipping companies, as is the current policy of the Howard-Anderson regime.

In the year 1999-2000, the minister also shifted a total of eight million tonnes of domestic freight tasked from Australian industry to foreign ships and guest labour—cheaper guest labour at the expense of Australian jobs. But, more importantly, the years I have referred to are not an aberration. In this year up to the end of the March quarter, the minister had already issued more continuous voyage permits than last year—74 compared to a total of 73 for all of 1999-2000. Single voyage permits issued up to the end of March quarter already number 476, with the same tonnage rounded at 7.3 million in both years.

Therefore, it is important to understand that there is a major industry grievance, and it is about this misuse of interstate coastal transport to the detriment of Australia as a trading nation. But it is also interesting to now discover, following consultation with others in the freight industry in Australia, that the damage to Australian jobs and the damage to the private sector in Australia is not just limited to maritime and shipping industries. It is now extending beyond the maritime and shipping industry because this government has no regard for our freight objectives and the issue of logistics when it comes to transport of freight in Australia.

I refer, for example, to the company Specialised Container Transport, a major transport company in Australia employing substantial numbers of Australians and investing in the training of Australians for the future. In a recent briefing, that company provided me with analysis that shows that millions of tonnes of freight have now been taken out of the rail industry and given to foreign shipping operators—not given to companies operated by Australian workers in coastal shipping, but taken out of the freight industry in Australia and given to crews of foreign shipping companies. That shows absolute contempt for the Australian freight industry and absolute contempt for Australian companies in the private sector prepared to invest in the future of this country and employ Australians. It is a government that deserves condemnation; it is a government consumed with destroying the Australian shipping industry; it is a government that has now got in place a policy which is taking freight off Australian companies and putting it on foreign vessels which pay no profit to Australia and which have no regard for our environment or for Australia as a nation, especially Australia's regions, which depend on a decent transport industry.

The minister has also never, ever released the industry-government working party report into the competitiveness of the Australian shipping industry. He sits there in his oval office, moving paper from one side of the desk to the other to avoid any responsibility, whilst getting on the phone trying to threaten and intimidate journalists in regional Australia who actually tell the truth about his performance and the performance of the Howard government. That report ought to be released now because it needs to be debated in the lead-up to the election. The reason it has not been released is that it did not say, and the government knows this, that cabotage should be abolished. The Australian Financial Review reported in 1999 that analysis by Access Economics in the hidden report shows that government policy eliminating cabotage without genuine reform would carry significant economic costs to the Australian economy. That is what is happening.

The Australian Shipowners Association submission to the current Senate hearing on a different bill also provides an interesting statistic. In 1998-99 vessels operating under single and continuous voyage permits carried 15.1 per cent of the total Australian interstate and intrastate transport industry freight task. In simple terms, that means that the operators moving 15.1 per cent of Australia's domestic freight do not have to pay Australian award conditions. In the majority of cases these operators are also receiving direct subsidies from the nation of origin—so much for international competition and a level playing field—to undermine jobs, wages and conditions in Australia. The Howard-Anderson government is responsible for destroying jobs and destroying decent working conditions in Australia. How can Australia be expected to compete with that? It is rubbish. Everyone knows about it and we know who is responsible for it: the people on the other side of the House, who hate Australian workers and want to destroy their wages, conditions and jobs.

The time has come for the Australian community to actually have the report I have referred to about cabotage out there for discussion in the lead-up to the election. It is a key issue in relation to jobs in Australia—that is what it is about—and to fair wages and conditions of employment. If we do not, the impact will be as has been foreshadowed to the minister in the report that is buried on his desk. He is removing cabotage by stealth without appropriate reform or policy direction and the expected economic damage is now being inflicted on the Australian community. The Australian public and shipping industry are paying the cost.

I have actually raised some very serious issues today. They go to detail of the evidence and impact of the risks taken by this government with their policy of hanging the Australian shipping industry out to dry. My colleagues will continue to raise these matters in important debates because they are entitled to make a contribution to the debate, which is not just about whether or not we should be able to move freight in and beyond Australia but is also about our responsibility to the Australian community. It is about our responsibility to protect the Australian coastal environment. It is about our responsibility to make sure that we have a coastal shipping service in place that enables us to face up to our responsibilities as they arise from time to time on the defence front, such as our involvement in East Timor. It was the head of the military, Major General Cosgrove, who actually complimented the Australian coastal shipping service on their contribution to East Timor.

I would also say in conclusion that it is about whether or not you want a trained, highly qualified shipping work force in Australia receiving fair and reasonable wages and conditions of employment. I suppose in essence it is about your national and international responsibilities. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:

It is clearly about telling the Australian community about the neglect of Australian shipping, the risk it poses to marine accidents, port pollution and infiltration by ports, and the sea of deadly diseases like foot-and-mouth disease. (Time expired)