Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak to this very important bill, the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Maritime Security Guards and Other Measures) Bill 2005, which is an amendment to the substantive bill debated in the House last week. That bill sought to introduce a maritime security framework for Australian ports and shipping and it also dealt with some aspects of foreign shipping in Australian waters. That security framework was subsequently extended to oil and gas facilities in offshore waters by the Maritime Transport Security Amendment Act. As I have said, this bill amends the 2003 act. Primarily, it increases the statutory powers of maritime security guards. Maritime security guards are similar to aviation security guards, with broadly similar qualifications and responsibilities.

Before I go further into some of the important parts of the bill before us today, I indicate my support for the shadow minister’s amendment to this bill. I would rather outline that amendment now because I think it is significant. As the member for Swan said, whilst we agree that something had to be done—there had to be a response by the government with respect to these very important security matters—we do not think the government has gone far enough. On this side we find that the government fails to match its rhetoric with proper, comprehensive responses to security threats. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would understand that, as would Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, who is about to take the chair. He also understands, as he just said in the debate, that this amendment moved by the shadow minister is very significant in that it highlights the deficiencies in Commonwealth law being proposed today.

The first concern raised by the shadow minister that I agree with is that, whilst we support the bill, we believe the government has failed to provide necessary security and protect Australians through its careless and widespread use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels with foreign crew who do not undergo appropriate security checks. We also believe that there has been a failure to provide the necessary maritime security by permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes and, further, a failure to ensure ships provide details for crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival, a failure to X-ray or inspect 90 per cent of containers, a failure to establish and properly fund an Australian coastguard—something that has been a Labor commitment for many a year—and a failure to establish a department of homeland security to better coordinate security in Australia. These deficiencies in the bill are not so significant that we will vote against it, because, as we say, there will be a negligible improvement as a result of this bill being enacted, but we do think that the government must attend to some of the issues we have raised and we think it is tardy of the government, to say the least, not to incorporate some of the recommendations made by Labor in this area.

Can I just return to the substance of the bill. This amendment provides maritime security guards with limited move-on powers, including the power to request certain information from a person found in a maritime security zone, and makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to clarify intent. With the purpose of clarifying and increasing the powers to maritime security guards, this bill contains the following provisions:

• a maritime security guard may request that a person found within a maritime security zone provide identification and reason for being in the zone ...

Clearly here the government has identified a concern as to the possible occupation of a person entering a particular area who is unknown to the security guard. I think this example is one where, when the law-makers consider the balance between national security on one hand and individual freedom on the other, the government rightly has indicated that there is a need to make certain assumptions about the presence of particular people in these areas and has placed the onus on those people to explain why they are there and to identify themselves. Further:

• a maritime security guard may request a person found in a maritime security zone without authorisation to move out of the zone, and if that request is not complied with, remove the person from the zone; and
• a maritime security guard may remove, or have removed, vehicles and vessels found in maritime security zones without authorisation.

Labor is repeatedly on the record as lobbying for specialised security guards at our ports across the country. We believe that those security guards must have defined powers. The maritime environment requires specialised people to ensure that the security we have in place is sufficient. Terrorist threats and organised crime pose real dangers to this country and we believe it is up to the government to ensure that it enacts real measures to combat terrorism.

As I said earlier, and as other speakers on this side have raised in this debate, we consider that the Howard government—on occasions at least—is completely ignorant of the terrorism threat by sea. As you, Deputy Speaker Wilkie, said in your contribution to this debate, they talk tough about security but when you examine their so-called policies they are more often than not all form and no substance in attending to the concerns that we have. Particularly in northern parts of Australia, but really in all the large ports, there have been a number of security breaches.

Just five years on from the awful events in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, there has been a focus on the potential destruction that can arise from a hijacked plane. It is understandable that the public’s memory of that awful event on 11 September 2001 would have them consider that the greatest threat to our national security in terms of transport would be by plane and have them focus on the way in which we regulate and monitor air transport. But we have to remember that there has been awful devastation, loss of human life and tragic injury caused by explosions occurring on trains and buses in Spain and London. Labor considers that serious threats exist and that we need to secure the way in which ships come into our harbours and into our ports. We know that there are certain explosive chemicals that can wreak havoc if they enter our ports—or indeed the ports of other sovereign nations—unchecked and undiscovered because of the failure to regulate security. We support the government in moving in this direction, but it is wanting; it falls short of a proper response to security at ports across our country.

I would also like to allude to Labor’s task force on transport and maritime security, which was chaired by the member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, this year. Its other members included Steve Gibbons, the member for Bendigo; Dick Adams, the member for Lyons; the chief opposition whip, Roger Price; and senators Glen Sterle and Ruth Webber. That task force enlightened me insofar as the report drafted uncovered some real problems with the failure to secure our ports in the areas that they visited in producing this report.

Just to show that Labor not only speaks about these issues but investigates the way in which they should be attended to, that task force visited Perth and spoke to the Western Australian Minister for Fisheries and the Western Australian Fishery Industry Council. It visited Broome in Western Australia and spoke to a whole host of witnesses. While it is likely that most people’s preoccupation with security goes to the potential threat of terrorism, there are some real breaches of our security—and indeed breaches of our laws—in the incursions by foreign fishing vessels which the government seems to blithely ignore. So little of this nation’s resources is being provided to securing our fishing waters, protecting our fishing industry and protecting our borders in relation to fishing by preventing the incursions of those unlawful fishing boats into our waters.

I think that, in going to Broome and One Arm Point in Western Australia and to the Northern Territory, speaking to a whole host of witnesses—people and organisations—and discussing not only the security concerns in relation to the potential terrorism threat but also the ongoing threat to our fishing industry and the security breaches that arise from those breaches, the task force showed that we do more than the government does in relation to these matters. The report also shows that.

It is also shown by the fact that, whilst we have a series of advisers who sit and listen to the words of both government and opposition members of this place—which I understand is not only their right but their obligation—and yet again I speak on this matter and following me will be the member for Holt and preceding me was your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, we find that the government talks about national security by media release but does not enter into the debate in this place about matters that it says are important to this nation. The government does not think that it is important enough for it to debate some of the amendments that we put together and propose to the government and when we say, in a bipartisan matter, that we believe that we can help improve the bill.

Here we are, supporting the substantive provisions of this bill and suggesting in good faith amendments that we think would improve the bill, and in this continuing debate today not one member of the government is responding to these matters. But, of course, what you will have from time to time is the Prime Minister calling a media conference and saying ‘national security’ four times and then closing his doors as he goes back into his office. If government members are genuinely concerned about security matters, why is it that they are never here to discuss them? Why is it that in this place, in this chamber, they fail to respond to the concerns that we have? Surely, if we cannot find some bipartisan positions on national security, what could we find a bipartisan position on? The shadow minister has moved his amendments in good faith. The amendments do not criticise the proposals that would amend the changes, in so far as how they have been outlined, but say that we think it can go further. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you said in the debate, we think they can go further in securing the citizens of this country in a manner that they deserve and, indeed, expect of the government.

I am disappointed that the government is mute today in relation to this very important area of national policy, particularly following the fifth anniversary of the awful events of 11 September 2001. One would have thought that the government would be sensitive to the concerns of the community, would treat this place with the respect that it deserves, would treat the matter that is being debated now with the respect that it deserves and would engage with the opposition on these matters. I would like to finish by saying once again that we support the bill. It does not go far enough. We ask the government to, in good faith, consider the amendments moved by the shadow minister, the member for Brisbane, because they strengthen this bill, engage the parliament and treat this place and this matter with due respect.

See this speech in context