Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today I stand in support of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Maritime Security Guards and Other Measures) Bill 2005. Before I start, I would just like to touch on a couple of points raised by the member for Brisbane. One is that I respectfully share his concerns about foreign ships. We need to ensure that we have everything done to ensure that those who enter our waters are properly checked. However, he did raise the point that this government has done very little for security. The sad reality is that, if we had a Labor federal government, we would just have to look at what they have done at the state level with regard to security.

We have the absolutely ridiculous situation that across this country people can purchase or get hold of explosives licences using false identification. This is in the realms and control of the state governments. That needs to be urgently changed. At the same time, there is no national database. Where a person purchases explosives in one state and moves to another state and the police check that person again, they have no ability to find out whether that person actually had a licence to possess explosives. The same goes for chemicals, and we have heard about ammonium nitrate fertiliser.

This bill is intended to enhance maritime transport security while benefiting the Australian economy and reinforcing Australia’s international obligations. Its provisions are consistent with this government’s policy of awareness of the very real possibility of a terrorist attack. Although the Australian people have fortunately not seen a terror attack on home soil, they have nonetheless suffered at the hands of terrorism.

Ten Australians were killed in the attacks on 11 September 2001 and numerous others were injured. Of the 202 killed in the tragic Bali bombings in October 2002, 88 were Australians. The London bombings have not left Australians unscathed. Twenty-eight-year-old Australian citizen Sam Ly was a victim of one of the bus bombings, and in recent times we have seen more arrests in London.

On 9 September 2004, a car bomb exploded outside Australia’s embassy in Indonesia’s capital, Jakarta. Though no Australians were among the 10 killed in the explosion, the attack has been seen as a threat directed towards Australia. The suffering and fear engendered by terrorism is repugnant to this government and, I am sure, to all members in this House. We will not tolerate these attempts to terrorise the Australian people.

Terror knows no bounds. We have seen attacks on land and from the air. But terrorists have also attacked at sea. On 12 October 2002, as the US navy destroyer Cole docked briefly to refuel, a small boat approached. It was laden with explosives. The suicide terrorist attack killed 17 members of the ship’s crew, wounded 39 others and seriously damaged the ship.

In 21st-century Australia, international terrorism on the land, in the air and on the sea is a reality we are forced to confront. In recognition of the fact, the International Maritime Organisation established the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code in December 2002. The ISPS code is an addition to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, to which Australia is a party. The code creates an international framework for detecting and assessing security threats to ships and port facilities and for taking preventative measures against them. It creates international cooperation on the maritime front.

In Australia, the requirements of the ISPS code have been implemented through the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003, recently amended and now called the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. Today’s bill amends that act. The act establishes maritime security zones, which are zones in ports and on ships that require additional security measures. The zones enable maritime security guards to monitor and control access to security regulated ports and ships and prevent unauthorised access to those areas. The act also provides for three maritime security levels and heightened levels in times of higher security risk.

From July this year, people requiring unmonitored access to maritime security zones must display a maritime security identification card when within maritime security zones. The card is nationally consistent and confirms that the holder has met the minimum background checking requirements to work in a maritime and/or offshore security zone.

At present, the 2003 act provides maritime security guards with the power to restrain an unauthorised person and to detain them until a law enforcement officer arrives. However, maritime security guards are prevented from requesting identification from a person within a maritime security zone, asking why he or she is there and requesting that he or she move on if it is established that his or her access is unauthorised. They are also prevented from removing vehicles or vessels found to be in a maritime security zone without authorisation. These limits inhibit the effectiveness of security within the higher risk zones. They would also limit the effectiveness of the new ID card system. That is why today’s amendment bill has been brought to the House.

Schedule 1 of the bill provides for increased efficiency in dealing with potential threats to maritime security by creating a quick response mechanism for dealing with unauthorised entrants to maritime security zones. As a former police officer, I cannot speak too highly of the need for effective and swift measures for dealing with unlawful behaviour. This is particularly so in the present international climate, with the heightened threat of terrorism.

Today’s amendment bill provides maritime security guards with the power to request that a person found within a maritime security zone provide identification and a reason for being there. They may also request a person they reasonably believe to be in a security zone without authorisation to move on and are permitted to remove them if they refuse to comply. Similar provision is made for the removal of vehicles and vessels found in a maritime security zone without authorisation. A maritime security guard must first make reasonable efforts to have the person in control of the vehicle or vessel remove it, but may then remove it themselves or cause it to be removed.

By giving limited additional move-on powers to maritime security guards, potential security breaches can be dealt with immediately. Without this amendment, maritime security guards are required to detain unauthorised entrants to maritime security zones until a law enforcement officer, usually a state or territory police officer, arrives. The proposed changes mean that resources need not be diverted from these law enforcement agencies. In the fight against terror our police forces need to be assisted in every way possible. While police officers can still be called in when required, the new arrangements allow ports to deal immediately with perceived threats to maritime security. Ports can deal promptly with unauthorised entrants into zones without needing the additional support of police resources.

I commend the Attorney-General and his department for the work that has gone into this legislation. It recognises that a balance must be struck between the legitimate use of force to protect maritime security zones from unauthorised entry and the rights of the individuals to whom the provisions may apply, and the reasonable care of property.

The amendment bill requires that a maritime security guard exercising the new powers identify himself or herself, advise the person of his or her authority to request information, and tell the person that non-compliance is an offence under the act. In the case where a person is found to be in the zone unauthorised, as I mentioned earlier, the guard may remove them. In the process, that person must not be subjected to greater force or indignity than is necessary and reasonable to remove them. These amendments, while safeguarding the rights of individuals and reasonable care of property, mean that matters of maritime security can be dealt with simply and immediately, keeping our ports and ships secure.

This legislation will affect every maritime security zone in Australia. Affected ships may be cargo ships, with at least 500 gross tonnes of cargo, or passenger ships. So we are not just talking cargo here—we are also talking people. The people of my electorate, La Trobe, will be affected by the proposed legislation. Station Pier, in Victoria, houses the Spirit of Tasmania. This pier is part of Melbourne Port and is classified as a maritime security zone. The proposed amendments mean that passengers travelling on board the Spirit of Tasmania can be confident in greater security on board the ship and within the ports where the ship docks. The same could be said for other passenger ships and ports that have been classified as maritime security zones. This goes directly to helping the people of La Trobe, and Australia, feel confident that adequate security is provided at our ports. We must not succumb to a fear of the threat of an attack by sea.

Nor should trade be hindered by a fear for the security of cargo and trade vessels. Australia’s geographical isolation means that our success in international trade is dependent on maritime trade. With credit to this government’s sound economic policy and economic management, Australia currently has just over 12 per cent of the world’s shipping task and seaborne trade, worth approximately $188 billion a year. Australia must maintain international confidence in the safety of its trading ports. The enhancement of security arrangements at ports and on ships helps to ensure Australia’s continued economic strength and competitiveness internationally. As for the cost of implementing the changes, that is covered by ongoing funding to the Department of Transport and Regional Services, as part of its responsibility for maritime security.

The miscellaneous amendments contained in schedule 2 of today’s amendment bill clarify the meaning of some of the terms in the 2003 act. They also deem the interpretation of certain terms to be consistent with the meaning found in the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, reinforcing Australia’s commitment to its international obligations. The schedule clarifies that a higher security level relevant to particular waters can apply to a regulated Australian ship. These changes help to ensure that our maritime security structure is clear, again making it more effective. This government is delivering on its promise from July 2004 to grant limited move-on powers to maritime security guards.

Security is an immensely important issue in these times. While respecting the rights of individuals and property, this bill will enhance Australia’s national maritime security regime through more effective law enforcement. It will help to maintain Australia’s significant role in international trade. It will promote international cooperation in maritime security across the globe through consistency with the ISPS Code and the SOLAS convention. 

In the face of global terrorism, Australia must continue to develop strong counter-terrorism policies and measures that enhance national security. The maritime front is one of natural vulnerability, where one side —the water side—will always lie exposed. As we have seen in the USS Cole attack, terrorists are prepared to attack at sea. This government is standing up to that threat. That is why I support this bill. In closing, I would like to thank Elisa Parham, a young and talented lady, for her assistance in undertaking research and her keen interest on maritime security. Again, I strongly support this bill, which reinforces the Howard government’s commitment to national security and the war against terrorism.

See this speech in context