Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have pleasure today in addressing the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Maritime Security Guards and Other Measures) Bill 2005. I welcome the contribution of my colleague the member for Gorton on this matter. I emphasise at the start that there is some concern about the importance of this bill and the fact that there have been so few speakers on the government side who want to make a contribution when the most important priority of a government is to ensure the security of its citizens, particularly as we stare at this bill in the shadow of the events that occurred in New York and Washington five years ago. What happened there was an attack upon a target that was not intended to be hit, and intelligence agencies and governments at the time did not anticipate that an attack of this nature would take place. Some threads ran through some of the intelligence agencies. Consequently, in light of the fact that the strategy of groups like al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah is to attack the weakest link, the government and we as an opposition, in trying to assist the government, must do everything to highlight measures that we think could be more effective in improving national security. I emphasise again, in the shadow of September 11, five years ago, that we must do everything that we can to protect our citizens. That is our highest national priority. The amendments to this bill that we have introduced we believe would actually strengthen the legislation.

To provide a bit of a framework, I operate as the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and that is a committee that on virtually every occasion in matters of national security has delivered a report with bipartisan support, particularly with the oversight of intelligence agencies. It has dealt with a lot of very controversial issues—ASIO’s questioning and detention powers, for example, and the proscription of terrorist organisations. On every occasion bar one there has been a completely unanimous report. That says that, when they have the opportunity, people of goodwill on both sides can, in the national interest, put their own political interests aside and act for the national good.

We believe this bill has deficiencies. We believe that the government, in the way in which it is attacking national security, particularly in areas like maritime security, is not doing enough. So the measures that were put forward in the second reading amendment, which I support wholeheartedly, are suggested improvements to security. I would like to detail those to the chamber at this time.

We on this side are obviously not declining giving this bill a second reading, but we condemn the government for its failure to provide the necessary maritime security and protect Australians, which, as I said, should be our highest priority. We are concerned about 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 worry about permitting foreign flag-of-convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes. We worry about the government’s failure to ensure that ships provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival, its failure to X-ray or inspect 90 per cent of containers, its failure to establish and properly fund an Australian coastguard—which we believe is appropriate and would do the job, as has been demonstrated by the American coastguard—and its failure to establish, like the Americans, a department of homeland security to better coordinate security in Australia. It is interesting that, when I spoke on another bill of a similar nature in the House last week, the minister responsible, in talking about the US Department of Homeland Security, basically said that it did not work very well, because of Hurricane Katrina.

We acknowledge that the system that the US has created is not perfect, but its intent—to create a unified force in the struggle against terrorism—and its implementation by one of our major allies should send a very clear signal to the Australian government. We on this side believe that the only reason that the idea of a department of homeland security has not been adopted is that we put it forward. As I have said before, if a committee that consists of both Labor and Liberal Party members can come up with bipartisan recommendations which the government takes seriously and if it has a proven track record of improving legislation that has been put before it, I find it quite unbelievable—given what I believe can transpire and given the threat level to Australia—that the government can disregard a sensible suggestion in the national interest.

I want to talk about the specific provision that we are looking at that would be enacted by this legislation. It follows the 2003 Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act, which introduced a maritime security framework for Australian ports and Australian shipping and also dealt with some aspects of foreign shipping in Australian waters. That security framework was subsequently extended to oil and gas facilities in offshore Australian waters by the Maritime Transport Security Amendment Act 2005. This bill clearly amends the 2003 act, but what we are debating today is a bill that primarily increases the statutory powers of maritime security guards.

Maritime security guards are similar in lots of ways to aviation security guards, with broadly similar qualifications and responsibilities. Maritime security guards are required to have a certificate II in security operations, or equivalent training, as the appropriate qualification level. The Maritime Transport Security Regulations 2003 require the guard to have a working knowledge of the act and these regulations. Section 162 of the act already deals with the prescribed training and qualification requirements for maritime security guards. It says:

(1)

A maritime security guard is a person who:

(a)

satisfies the training and qualification requirements and any other requirements prescribed in the regulations for maritime security guards; and

(b)

is on duty at a security regulated port, on a security regulated ship or on a security regulated offshore facility; and

(c)

is not a law enforcement officer.

(2)

The regulations must prescribe the following for maritime security guards:

(a)

training and qualification requirements;

(b)

requirements in relation to the form, issue and use of identity cards.

(3)

The regulations may prescribe the following for maritime security guards:

(a)

requirements in relation to uniforms;

(b)

any other requirements.

The Maritime Transport Security Regulations 2003 stipulate:

(a)

the person:

(i)

must hold at least a Certificate II in Security Operations that is in force; or

(ii)

must hold a certificate or qualification that is in force and that is equivalent to at least a Certificate II in Security Operations (for example, a Certificate II in Security (Guarding)); or

(iii)

must have undergone training and acquired experience while working as a security guard that is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for obtaining a security guard license in the state or territory where the person intends to work as a maritime security guard (the relevant state or territory);

(b)

the person must hold a licence to work as a security guard, being a licence that was issued or recognised by the relevant state or territory and that is in force;

(c)

the person must have a working knowledge of the Act and these Regulations, including knowledge about how to restrain and detain persons in accordance with section 163 of the Act.

So what powers will a maritime security guard now have under this bill? The bill 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 of 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 a reason for being in the zone; 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.

These are all very well sounding and well intentioned amendments. But my question to the House—and I would reflect that there are a number of concerns held within the industry—is whether the training and qualifications of the guards that would enforce these new powers is appropriate. In fact, these people are quasi law enforcement officers, with powers to move on and powers to use reasonable force in certain circumstances. Yet to exercise these significant powers all they are required to have is a certificate II. This level of training is defined by the Australian Standard Classification of Education as follows:

Certificate I and II level provides a knowledge and skills base ranging from basic knowledge in a narrow range of areas to basic operational knowledge in a moderate range of areas.

My view and the view on this side of the chamber is that we should have specialised law enforcement officers to administer this particular act, because we believe that the most appropriate people to be exercising these powers are qualified law enforcement officers. Certainly, my experience in terms of understanding the security threat in this country is that these people are qualified enough. There has been some level of concern about security guards being used, and yet we know that security guards can in fact police these particular matters. I believe that is a concern.

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee was quite critical of the government for proceeding with the legislation before appropriate regulations had been drafted and circulated to all industry participants and all governments, and clearly that is a concern that should be recognised by the parliament. Australians are entitled to question, at the end of the day, whether the security of our ports should be based on a network of private security guards, as the current legislation anticipates. For instance, in their submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities said:

Port authorities and facilities generally employ contractors as security guards.

In relation to the level of training provided to those security guards, they said:

It is … nowhere near the level of that provided to law enforcement officers, yet, MSGs—

maritime security guards—

are expected to carry out the duties set out in the Bill.

As a previous speaker said in the other chamber:

... security guard will perhaps one day be guarding a council shopping centre and on another day be required to exercise these very important and now significant powers with respect to the policing of our ports. I question whether that is appropriate.

We have a network of Australian Protective Services officers which is supervised by the Federal Police at our airports. Given the level of threat—and we know that there is threat to our ports and to our maritime lines—I do not understand why the same measures are not being employed in this area. I have yet to basically understand why that is the case.

We have lobbied repeatedly for specialised police at Australia’s ports because, as I have just said, the maritime environment requires specialised people who understand it. That is a concern. The Department of Transport and Regional Services has said in a Senate committee that, when it considers the approval of a single voyage permit, no additional checks are made to look at particular seafarers—that is, the department does not care about the security background of the crews of the foreign ships.

The failure of the government in dealing with these matters is, in itself, alarming. As well as careless and widespread use of single voyage permits for foreign crews, most of the containers that arrive in Australia are not scrutinised or checked. The Howard government seem comfortable with their approach of allowing 90 per cent of the containers entering Australia to go unopened and without being X-rayed. Yet, it is interesting that Hong Kong, one of our major trading ports and one of the major ports in the world, is trialling a system where 100 per cent of their containers will be X-rayed. In fact, the Americans are considering doing the same thing.

Some time ago, parliament approved arrangements whereby all vessels coming to Australia were to advise the authorities of their cargo and crew 48 hours before they arrived in port. However, only 67 per cent of the containers that arrived in Australia between 13 January 2005 and May 2005 complied with that provision. This effectively means that one-third of all ships that came to Australia during that period did not comply with the requirement, yet the government has done nothing to rectify this.

Unfortunately, our corner of the world happens to be one of the worst places in the world for piracy. The greatest incidence of piracy in the world occurs in the waterways to our immediate north-west around Indonesia, Malaysia and the Strait of Malacca. As a matter of interest, two ships a week report pirate activities—that is, they were subject to piracy in the last year. Other countries have recognised this problem. The other place that rivals our corner of the world for piracy is off the coast of Africa. The response of the international community is to work with African countries to set up a coastguard for these nations so that they can deal with this threat.

My question again to those on the other side is: why don’t we have a coastguard? There is only one group of people to blame for the failure to implement a properly trained and adequately resourced coastguard, and that is the government. We have again called in a bipartisan way for a coastguard, because we know from looking at overseas experience that coastguards work. No-one should underestimate the threat that maritime security poses to our country. My colleague the member for Melbourne Ports, who is not with us today, has detailed to me some of his private concerns about some of the security breaches that he has seen around the Melbourne port area. If those security breaches had been taken advantage of, major damage could have been caused.

We also know that, in terms of the methods used by terrorist organisations, particularly Jemaah Islamiah, that ammonium nitrate is the weapon of choice, because it is very readily available. I am glad to see that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has come into the chamber to discuss this matter. Just for the minister’s edification, we on this side believe that we need one coordinated department to oversee all of these security matters so that we can strengthen our security environment.

I support the bill and, in particular, the second reading amendment. I urge the government to do one thing: accept the amendment that we have put forward on a bipartisan basis. We can look at the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security as a model. It is a bipartisan committee that looks at national security issues and classified information, and it arrives at recommendations that it believes are in the national interest. I ask the minister to take the advice that has been provided by this side of the House in the same spirit as those members of the government on the joint intelligence committee and accept the recommendations, strengthen our national security and make our country safer.

See this speech in context