Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is timely that the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Maritime Security Guards and Other Measures) Bill 2005 comes before the House today for debate. In a few days time it will the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attack on the United States. It will be five years since a major terrorist attack went from being considered to have a relatively low probability of occurring in this country—and other Western nations, for that matter—to being a serious concern for the people of this nation. This 11 September will also mark five years of Howard government inaction when it comes to introducing measures to protect the community—measures which it promised to deliver. This 11 September, in a few days time, will mark five years of this government preying on the fears of the community rather than protecting its people.

Earlier this week it was revealed just how easy it would be for a direct attack to occur on Australian airports. This government has failed to implement the Wheeler report’s expert recommendations on regional airports, leaving more than 3.9 million passengers a year at risk. It is not just the regional airports that do not have baggage screening in place. Even in major centres, capital cities, airports do not have the required level of baggage protection recommended in the Wheeler report. Tens of thousands of passengers have travelled from 11 regional airports into the heart of Australia’s largest city, Sydney, without having had their bags screened. That is, nearly 67,000 regional flights in this country go unchecked each year.

The failure of this government on this and other security measures is reason enough for the government to support Labor’s second reading amendment that, among other things, calls for the establishing of a department of homeland security to enable the security gaps that have been identified and that can expose our population to be closed. It is a concerted attempt to coordinate the efforts and to make sure that our people are secure.

Another important aspect of Labor’s second reading amendment goes to the heart of the bill before us today. Too much time has passed with Australia not having a coastguard. There is only one group of people to blame for the failure to implement a proper, trained, adequately resourced coastguard, and that is this government. For many years now, the Labor Party has called for the establishment of an Australian coastguard. The establishment of a coastguard goes to the heart of the bill before us because, as the government has claimed, this bill is aimed at strengthening maritime transport and empowering maritime security guards to respond to unauthorised vessels, including the extension of a range of information-gathering powers. The stated purpose of the bill before us is to improve Australia’s maritime security, and that is precisely what Labor’s second reading amendment seeks to achieve.

This bill has been introduced on the premise that there are problems within Australian maritime security. The government has accepted that Australia’s maritime security is grossly inadequate. Through this bill, the government is setting about correcting its failures in maritime security by providing limited move-on powers, some further information seeking and gathering powers and some powers that will allow maritime security guards to remove vessels found in maritime security zones without authorisation. There is no doubt that these are important developments and should be supported—they certainly do improve the security of our coastlines—but the question remains as to whether this is an adequate response.

The government has already accepted that it has failed miserably in securing our coastline. Even after the provisions of this bill have been enacted, that situation will remain. Australia is an island nation and with an island nation comes a large coastline to protect. A porous border, a coastal one, should not be allowed to continue. Australia’s coastline is approximately 37,000 kilometres. It is no mean feat to secure such an extensive coastline. It is a task that would be greatly assisted through the establishment of an Australian coastguard such as the one Labor has advocated for a number of years.

The United States Department of State’s Report on Terrorism 2005, released earlier this year, noted that there is a problem in our region with maritime security. It made the following observation:

JI has had links to al-Qaeda and was responsible for the August 2003 bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta and the bombing outside the Australian Embassy in September 2004. While Indonesia has significantly improved its efforts to control the maritime boundary area with the Philippines, the area remains difficult to control, surveillance is partial at best, and traditional smuggling and piracy groups provide an effective cover for terrorist activities in the area.

The International Maritime Organisation reported that nearly half of the world’s reported piracy incidents occurred in South-East Asian waters. Of 266 cases, 117 were in the South China Sea and around the Indonesian Archipelago. It takes resources to protect and secure a coastline of 37,000 kilometres. That is not disputed. It takes resources to stop the more than 13,000 suspected illegal fishing boats that were sighted last year in Australian waters. Government members will claim that the government has dedicated resources to the task, and they will claim that as recently as the last budget the government committed to doubling the number of illegal fishing boats caught in Australian waters. Well, last year they caught 200. Their commitment to doubling the number caught means that they will aim to catch 400 illegal fishing vessels, so more than 12½ thousand will still sail by.

Despite the passage of this legislation, and despite the impressive commitment to catch double the number of vessels this year, ships will sail through Australian waters uninhibited. Illegal fishermen will continue to land on our shores, set up camps and moor their vessels well upstream. We know this already happens, and we know that it will continue to happen. If fishermen can get through and set up camp in Australian waters uninhibited, as occurs presently, what else might be happening?

This is one reason, among others, that part of Labor’s plan to secure our coastline has been the establishment of an Australian coastguard. It was a policy proposal put forward at the last election that included the acquisition of a further eight vessels and additional aircraft, as well as the recruitment of some 250 personnel to serve in an Australian coastguard.

Through this bill the government is edging closer and closer towards the establishment of a coastguard. Its first tenuous steps are to develop and, now, to further empower maritime security officers. But this edging towards a coastguard is not getting there quickly enough. As the polls reported in the Telegraph a week or so ago show, people want this government to act when it comes to protecting them from the threat of terrorism. I hope this government is not resisting serious considerations to establish an Australian coastguard solely because it was a policy development of the Australian Labor Party. Bipartisan support on matters of security is essential if we are to genuinely protect Australian people. Hence there is bipartisan support for the initiatives that have been introduced in the bill before us, to develop and further empower maritime security guards. This is because, as I said earlier, they assist in the security of our borders and enhance our level of security. But in dealing with that in any tangible way and being in a position to protect Australian waters, given that we know that even last year there were 13,000 illegal fishing vessels sighted, we need the development of a properly resourced and properly trained Australian coastguard. People want action when it comes to security; they do not want the government rejecting ideas solely because they were not their own.

I note that the bill includes the extension of a number of powers of maritime security guards. Maritime security guards are not all that dissimilar from their airborne colleagues the aviation security guards. They have broadly similar tasks and responsibilities, and they undergo training and receive a level of qualification which I think is broadly similar. I understand the maritime security guards are required to have a certificate II in security operations or an equivalent qualification or training. The maritime transport security regulations of 2003 also require the guards to have ‘a working knowledge of the act and these regulations’. The passage of this bill will extend some of the powers and responsibilities of these guards. One of the provisions of the bill will grant operative maritime security guards a limited move-on power, which certain police already have. They are also given powers to request information, so it is an enhanced information-gathering power. They will be granted the power to remove, or have removed, vessels found in a maritime security zone without authorisation.

Maritime security is a specialist area and requires special security guards. As someone who has spent some time with professional bodies representing state and territory police and other law enforcement organisations, I understand the importance of providing those tasked with enforcing laws and protecting the community with the proper equipment and training. It must go through to the actual qualifications that some of these people are required to get to exercise these powers on behalf of the community. It concerns me that, as I understand it, maritime security guards will only receive quite limited training, which I suggest a level II certificate might be. Compare this to the typical police officer, who is trained by a state or territory police force and required to undergo some 12 months of training and a further 12 months on-the-job training to complete probation. Or you can compare it to our Australian Federal Police officers, who, depending on their area of expertise, could be training for years. Indeed, there are also Australian protective security officers of the AFP who I think undergo about 10 weeks of training, which is quite extensive, to be able to serve in an airport. Not only are they trained in the matters at hand; they are also licensed to carry firearms. To that extent they form a first line in a response to terrorism. In addition to all that, AFP protective security officers are subject to the new Commonwealth integrity regime. I think that is rightfully so.

With the extension of power comes an extension of responsibility, and therefore to be subject to the integrity powers of the Commonwealth would, I think, have been appropriate. But the responsibility is not only on those who exercise the powers under this bill; it is also the responsibility of the government to make sure that those who are granted these legal rights are trained to exercise those powers properly. I trust that the government will be investing money in the ongoing training of our maritime security guards in the future. I hope that it is reviewed to the point that they are the equivalent of Australian Federal Police protective service officers.

Five years ago the world changed. The Western nations, Australia included, that had not had direct experience with non-state terrorism were shocked by the realisation of the September 11 attacks on the United States and what they meant—that terrorism could strike anywhere at any time. The Jakarta bombings showed that the threat was at our very own door. The London bombings showed that the threat could come from within. The one clear fact from all these instances was that non-state terrorism displayed a capacity to strike at any time. It demonstrated and reinforced how security failures can be lethal, can disrupt our communities and our economies and can undermine public safety and confidence. Border control and the protection of our nation’s population have always been a central plank of the task of our federal government, but events of the last few years have shown that the stakes are now particularly high. Every effort must be made to protect our borders at sea and in the air.

In the United States, border security, as you appreciate only too well, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, has been given the highest priority, yet still problems exist. The Government Accountability Office reported that material that could have been used to conduct acts of terror has been able to get through US border checks. This is in a country that has dedicated itself to the task of protecting itself from acts of terrorism.

Given the resources that have been allocated to that task by the United States government—and they still cannot guarantee success—it is somewhat disappointing that this government seems to take the optimistic view that Australia is making good progress. I do not know that it rates as good progress that last year 13,000 illegal fishing vessels were spotted off our coast. I do not know that you can rate it as good progress when you discover that illegal fishing vessels are not only landing on our mainland but setting up camp on rivers. The Howard government has dropped the ball on maritime security, just as it has on airport security, and this situation needs to be rectified immediately.

I particularly support Labor’s second reading amendment because it goes a long way towards protecting our maritime borders. The best way, and the only way, to do that properly is to clean up the maritime industry through the introduction of an Australian coastguard. That should be the immediate priority of the government.

See this speech in context