|
representatives vote 2018-08-15#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-06-16 11:59:39
|
Title
Bills — Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail- Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Definition of 'voyage'
Description
<p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>I move opposition amendment (3):</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendment (3)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-08-15.129.1) introduced by Grayndler MP [Anthony Albanese](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/grayndler/anthony_albanese) (Labor), which means they failed.
- ### What did this amendment do?
- Mr Albanese [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2018-08-15.129.1):
- > *Amendment (3) is to omit schedule 1, item 15, page 5, lines 20 to 23. Section 6(1) of the Coastal Trading Act currently defines 'voyage' as the 'movement of a vessel from one port to another port'. That definition shouldn't be all that surprising. The bill proposes to amend this definition to remove the reference to movement from one port to another port, effectively extending the definition of a voyage to include voyages that don't really go anywhere, that start and finish at the same port. The explanatory memorandum says that the purpose of this amendment is to:*
- >
- >> *… open the coastal trading regime to chartered recreational vessels that typically embark and disembark at the same port …*
- >
- > *In practice, this definitional change is likely to harm existing, more traditional sections of the domestic maritime industry. It would open the way for foreign transhipment and bunker barge operators to apply for temporary licences to work around the Australian coast. Currently, the companies performing these activities, which usually begin and end in the same port, are Australian based and employ Australian seafarers. But once again we see a government that doesn't seem to worry about whether there are Australian jobs and Australians being employed or whether, effectively, we're offshoring those jobs and thereby contracting the Australian industry.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 20 to 23), omit the item.*
<p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 20 to 23), omit the item.</p><p>Amendment (3) is to omit schedule 1, item 15, page 5, lines 20 to 23. Section 6(1) of the Coastal Trading Act currently defines 'voyage' as the 'movement of a vessel from one port to another port'. That definition shouldn't be all that surprising. The bill proposes to amend this definition to remove the reference to movement from one port to another port, effectively extending the definition of a voyage to include voyages that don't really go anywhere, that start and finish at the same port. The explanatory memorandum says that the purpose of this amendment is to:</p><p class="italic">… open the coastal trading regime to chartered recreational vessels that typically embark and disembark at the same port …</p><p>In practice, this definitional change is likely to harm existing, more traditional sections of the domestic maritime industry. It would open the way for foreign transhipment and bunker barge operators to apply for temporary licences to work around the Australian coast. Currently, the companies performing these activities, which usually begin and end in the same port, are Australian based and employ Australian seafarers. But once again we see a government that doesn't seem to worry about whether there are Australian jobs and Australians being employed or whether, effectively, we're offshoring those jobs and thereby contracting the Australian industry.</p><p>I'm sure the government will say that this is about superyachts, given that it seemed to just talk and talk and talk about superyachts during the debate on this legislation. But the fact is that the damage that would be done to Australian based tourism operators, as well as Australian based bunker barge operators, for example, could be substantial. I have said, and I reiterate to the minister, that Labor is open to reforms that will promote the growth of the superyacht industry, to the benefit of communities up and down the Australian coastline. But we need to do it in a way that doesn't have unintended consequences, that doesn't basically knock over those Australian industries that are currently operating.</p><p>One of those, which I've mentioned before, is Coral Expeditions. On their letterhead, they define themselves as 'Australia's pioneering cruise line'. Indeed, they are a great Australian success story, employing people in Queensland in particular. This is what they said in their submission of 13 August, a few days ago, to the Senate committee on this legislation: 'The changes will have the unintended consequence of killing off the growing and globally respected Australian flagged expedition cruise ship industry. This will have a significant negative impact on sustainable tourism and the environment in remote and sensitive coastal areas in Australia and on the revival of Australian seafaring.' They say: 'We urge the current restrictions on coastal trading for foreign flagged passenger ships be maintained in order to facilitate the steady and sustainable development of coastal tourism and the Australian seafaring industry.'</p><p>I've met with the superyacht industry. I've spoken with them about the changes that could be made, looking at the Customs Act provisions, for example—</p> <p class="speaker">Craig Kelly</p><p>Doesn't Albo have a superyacht?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>That's the sort of idiocy that has given you such preselection problems.</p> <p class="speaker">Craig Kelly</p><p>Won't you invite me out on it?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>That's the sort of brilliant interjection which has made you the part of the rump of the Liberal Party that you are. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Ian Goodenough</p><p>The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Grayndler.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>I won't respond any further to the member for Hughes. I say to the member for Hughes that there has to be a reason why Sky News exists, and it is for the member for Hughes to get a run somewhere, which he does regularly. He of course gets runs on other occasions as well—when he makes regrettable and offensive statements that he then has to withdraw. I say to the member for Hughes: sometimes it's really smart to shut up, and then people won't know what is inside. I say that constructively.</p><p>But the fact is I have been prepared to sit down with industry. I regard the minister as a serious person and I put forward suggestions in a constructive way—and I've made a couple; one is about customs. There are other ways as well that you could resolve the sorts of issues that have been raised by the industry with me, and they are open to that. But what you shouldn't do is make changes that undermine the entire Australian coastal fleet, undermine Australian jobs and undermine existing Australian operators like True North and Coral Expeditions, because it is simply not in anyone's interests for that to occur. I assume that resolving these issues is the objective of the amendment in the bill to change the definition of 'voyage', and I'll listen to the minister's response, but I say to the minister that Australian based industry are saying that that is not in their interests, and the people whom this particular clause is aimed at are also saying they're not wedded to it. They're after an outcome rather than any particular process. I commend opposition amendment (3) to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Goodenough</p><p>I put the question—</p><p class="italic">Mr Conroy interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Michael McCormack</p><p>No, no.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Goodenough</p><p>Sorry.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael McCormack</p><p>Let's hear from the member for Shortland!</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Goodenough</p><p>Yes. I call the member for Shortland.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael McCormack</p><p>Please, let's hear from the member for Shortland!</p> <p class="speaker">Pat Conroy</p><p>We've avoided another—</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>Crisis!</p> <p class="speaker">Pat Conroy</p><p>crisis—a parliamentary crisis! This amendment, and the series of amendments that the member for Grayndler is moving, goes to trying to restore some semblance of integrity to the coastal shipping and trade regime around general licences versus temporary licences. What we've seen under this government is an attack on the general-licences approach and the issuing of temporary licences any time they feel like it, which is really destroying the Australian shipping industry.</p><p>This is a government that is intent on putting Australian seafarers out of work. There is no sugar-coating it. This is a government that is intent on putting Australian seafarers out of work. You just have to see what they did around the MV <i>Portland</i> and the CSL <i>Melbourne</i>. They issued temporary licences to replace Australian crewed ships doing very regular work. For 27 years the MV <i>Portland</i> shipped alumina from Western Australia to the Portland aluminium smelter—for 27 years. By any definition it was a regular trip, but this government issued a temporary licence so that that company could frogmarch off Australian workers and replace them with foreign flagged vessels on dodgy temporary licences. They did the same thing for CSL <i>Melbourne</i>. They put Australian seafarers out of work on shipping routes that were, by definition, regular. You knew how many shipments of alumina would go from Western Australia to Portland and how many from Gladstone to Newcastle to the Tomago smelter. Every year it was as regular as anything. But this government put those Australian seafarers out of work because they're intent on destroying that industry.</p><p>You don't have to take my word for it. You only have to read the regulatory impact statement that accompanied their 2015 legislation effort. Their own regulatory impact statement stated that all the savings associated with that legislation came from putting 1,000 of the 1,100 Australian seafarers out of work. Rarely has a conservative government been so honest in its attack on Australian workers. That RIS, if it had got through parliament, would have put out of work 90 per cent of Australian seafarers. That's what they intend to do by continuing to weaken the protections against temporary licences by massively expanding the tolerance limits allowed when they issue temporary licences. That's the nub of this amendment and the nub of this bill. That's why Labor's amendments must be supported.</p><p>It's not just about Australian jobs and maintaining an Australian industry. We're a maritime nation, and there are huge national security implications in making sure that we've got an adequate Australian merchant maritime work force. There are also huge environmental issues. June this year was the 11th anniversary of when the <i>Pasha B</i><i>u</i><i>lk</i><i>er</i> washed up on Nobbys Beach in Newcastle during a storm. It was a foreign flagged and foreign crewed vessel that had ignored the warnings of the harbourmaster to move away from the coast of Newcastle. We've also seen foreign flagged and foreign crewed vessels ignoring warnings to move away from the Great Barrier Reef. They've literally run aground and damaged sections of the Great Barrier Reef, imperilling a $9 billion tourism industry that employs 68,000 Australians, all because the government wants to undermine Australian vessels and replace Australian seafarers with foreign workers on $2 a day on flag-of-convenience vessels. What's the next step? Having Australian trucks on our highways replaced by foreign trucks, staffed by foreign workers paid $2 a day? This is just the logical extension of that.</p><p>As the shadow minister's already foreshadowed, we're open to discussions with the superyacht industry about how we facilitate the growth of that industry, but you don't do it by further attacks on Australia's shipping industry, further attacks on our proud maritime tradition. So I urge that Labor's amendments be supported. I urge this government to go back to the drawing board. I acknowledge that the minister in the past has acknowledged that we need a bipartisan settlement. We need a bipartisan policy solution that will survive changes of government. That is the only way you're going to get investment in new Australian ships, staffed by Australian seafarers. But this bill is not the way to do it, so I urge them to go back to the drawing board and come back with something that is actually workable and fair and that will promote Australian seafarers.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>The minister spoke about the consultation process that occurred. A discussion paper was released on 21 March 2017. Discussions took place on 20 April 2016 with some of the unions. On 27 April 2016, there were consultations with some industry groups. Perhaps indicative of the lack of judgement and the motivation of the government, both of its so-called reform packages were launched at events hosted by the foreign shippers, not the Australian shipping industry. One of the extraordinary things that I find is that MIAL, Maritime Industry Australia Limited—the peak organisation, the peak body, which represents Australian based shipping operators and other Australian based maritime businesses—were not invited to participate in either of the meetings that were hosted on 27 April 2016. That's not the current minister's fault, but it does go to why this legislation is not only flawed; it was designed to exclude those Australian based interests. That is unfortunate.</p><p>As the member for Shortland has outlined, incidents around the coast like those involving the <i>Pacific Adventurer</i> and the <i>Shen Neng</i> have had consequences for our pristine natural environment. Fortunately, they haven't been catastrophic. A potential incident on the Great Barrier Reef could have literally billions of dollars of consequences for Australia because of the knock-on impact that it would have. One of the things that I did as the minister was to extend south the area that was required to have pilots to make sure that that protection was put in place. The environmental consequences are severe.</p><p>We also know that, in terms of the maintenance, many of these foreign ships operating around the coast are pretty ordinary, to say the least, compared with Australian based ships. We know that the maintenance simply isn't there. We know that the workforce can often be overworked and not have appropriate occupational health and safety conditions. For example, the captain of the <i>Shen Neng </i>was prosecuted, as he should have been, for failing to turn through the channel. As the inquiry found, that was a result of that particular gentleman not having been to sleep for a very, very long time. The sort of idea that we should have a free-for-all around our coast without consequences is simply an error of judgement.</p><p>There's the other issue of national security. We hear a lot from those opposite about the protection of borders, yet we will have consequences if the Australian shipping industry cannot continue. Foreign based ships with foreign workers will not have gone through the same security clearances that Australian seafarers have to go through. People who work in ports have to have MSIC cards and go through the whole security clearance process. These ships have a lot of fuel on them. They're often in ports and harbours, very close to where people reside in very large numbers. I think there are real national security issues which arise from that, let alone the issue of the link between the merchant fleet and our military fleet. That linkage has historically been there between the Navy and people who have worked in the merchant fleet. Their skills are interchangeable. If you don't have an Australian based maritime sector, what you won't have is the sorts of skills base of people— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Ian Goodenough</p><p>The member's time has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Grayndler.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|