Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we have before us is a bill that could, if not scrutinised properly, radically change who works at our airports. I stand today on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 to issue a bit of a 'let's wait and see' and a warning about how changing the eligibility criteria for existing Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards could affect the workforce at our airports.

Yes, Labor supports well-targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as a means to distribute drugs or other contraband into and out of Australia do commit crimes and should be prosecuted. We have seen from the report of the National Ice Taskforce of December last year that there is work that needs to be done not just in enforcement but in supporting people who are seeking rehabilitation and help. Labor did welcome that report when it was released, and we do support measures to refine the ASIC and MSIC system. However, we are cautious about the eligibility criteria that could be changed.

Let us for a moment reflect on who our workers are who currently have these passes in our airports and our maritime industries. What has not been acknowledged—and what many people in this place may not be aware of if they do not talk to workers as they go through the airport as they come to Canberra, and what many Australians may not be aware of—is that it is not just our security officers or our baggage handlers but every person who works air side. So it is everyone who works at the Boost Juice, everyone who works at the newsagency, every single cleaner in the building and every single person who works at Hungry Jacks. Every single person who works in an airport is required to have an ASIC card. We need to make sure that any eligibility criteria that we put forward is targeting those who are at risk of committing serious crime and not targeting those who just want to go to work and get paid for doing a decent job.

I know the Melbourne Airport quite well. In a previous role, I used to represent the cleaners and the security guards at the airport in my capacity as a union organiser for United Voice. At the moment at Melbourne Airport, they are going through a contract change. It is the third contract change in as many years. The first company was ISS. It held the cleaning contract for Melbourne Airport for many years. Then it went to Assetlink. It cleans other airports around the country. Now, the contract has gone to IKON cleaning. Long-term cleaners, cleaners like Victor, who have cleaned at the airport for 15 years and who have an ASIC card, have been told that there is no job for them with the new incoming company. There is no job for them. Despite his safety record, despite his work ethic and record, he has been told by the new company, 'You don't have a job.' So there is a real safety question about who IKON, the contracted cleaning company, will be employing to work at the airport in the future. We need to make sure that any of those new cleaners who come through do pass the relevant safety checks for ASIC. More importantly, we need to make sure that the new criteria does not discriminate in a way that makes it hard for them to do their job.

I am not suggesting for a moment that anyone from the government believes that cleaners are at the forefront of serious crime in this country. But if you are going to change the eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC cards, we need to make sure that we are not bringing into it people like our cleaners and hospitality workers who work at the airport. Victor will be replaced by an IKON cleaner. IKON, like other cleaning companies, does not have the best track record in the cleaning industry. It does rely on subcontracted labour. Again, it brings into question who will be working in our airports. We hope the company will change its mind and give first preference to the cleaners who have worked there for a long period of time people. They are people that the Melbourne Airport and airlines trust. They are people who have demonstrated that they are able to do a good job and who have passed the necessary safety checks.

If you do not have an ASIC card, or if you are waiting for an ASIC card, what currently happens is that you are escorted by another cleaner or by another worker in and out of the workplace. When you are air side, basically you are not able to wander around without being escorted. One of the things that I do question with the eligibility criteria is whether they will be excluding occupation health and safety reps from applying for ASIC cards. Will they be excluding union officials and organisers from applying for ASIC cards? If you are somebody who represents transport workers in the baggage handling area, it would be very hard to do your job if the eligibility criteria is changed and you are no longer able to have an ASIC card. It would be very hard if you are somebody who works for WorkSafe if you are excluded from being able to obtain an ASIC card. These are the practical workplace issues that could be caught up if we do not have proper scrutiny of the criteria and how it changes.

Our airports employ thousands and thousands of people. The Melbourne Airport is the biggest employer in the north. People in the Bendigo electorate—people in Woodend, people in Kyneton—commute from there to work at Melbourne Airport. People who live in McEwen, people who live in Gorton—people who live in the surrounding electorates—make up the workforce at Melbourne Airport. We need to make sure that any changes to the eligibility criteria will not see people currently working there lose their jobs. How strict are these new rules going to be? What offences will be excluded? We cannot take the government's word that it is only serious crime. Is it somebody who may have committed a minor crime when they were younger but who has admitted their mistake, been through the court system and are now working? It could be something that happened 20 or 30 years ago. Will those people who are currently working be excluded from having an ASIC or an MSIC card in the future? So I have a few questions for the government on its changes to the eligibility criteria. How many people currently working as cleaners, baggage handlers and in cafes at our airports will fail these new eligibility criteria? What offences did they commit? Are they minor offences? Are they misdemeanour offences? There are lots of questions that remain unanswered by the government in this debate. Our airports are some of the biggest workplaces in this country. Yes, we must do more to stop organised crime and the import and export of drugs and other contraband. However, we need to make sure that we are not going too far and demonising people within a workforce who may have made a mistake in the past, admitted it, done their time for it—for lack of better words—moved on, have careers and are currently working in our airports.

I mentioned security officers before. Our security officers do a tough job at our airports. Since 9/11 the face of security at our airports has changed. All of them are responsible for ensuring that people have the correct ASIC card. They ensure that all of us who get onto planes are not carrying anything that is inappropriate and that may cause harm. What is interesting is that, whilst the government is so stringent about the actual pass that you have, it is not stringent about the number of visa workers that might be working as subcontractors in our security industry. The government should be backing this up with rules to ensure that every subcontractor that works at an airport is paying and being paid Australian wages and conditions.

As we heard earlier, Australian workers within the security contracting industry, the cleaning industry and the hospitality industry are quite often being undercut by workers who are not being paid the correct wages and conditions in jobs that have been subcontracted out. I would like to see the government ensure that, in areas like aviation and maritime security, where we want the utmost security, people who have an ASIC or an MSIC card are directly employed, paid the correct wages and conditions, and that the company who employs them is responsible for them and cannot subcontract out their responsibilities.

Unfortunately, too often we have seen breaches of security at some of our Defence bases where the security company has sub-subcontracted to somebody whose Defence clearance is pending. We do not want to see that happen at our airports. I would like to see the government move forward and make the client more accountable in making sure that people working at our airports are paid the correct wages and conditions and that these are good jobs and have the security that goes with them.

For these many reasons Labor supports the Senate inquiry into this legislation. Let's be clear: transport security is a mission that needs to be clarified. We need to make sure that we are targeting our rules and focusing on law enforcement to stop the drugs coming in and the contraband coming in and going out of Australia. The last thing we want is our agencies spending too much time reviewing eligibility criteria and having to go back and give special consideration to the one individual who may have made a minor mistake in their life 20 years ago. It takes bureaucracies a lot of time dealing with and wasting resources on going after the cafe worker, the cleaner—someone like Victor, who has worked at the airport for 15 years—someone who has worked in security for a long time or someone who has worked in hospitality at the airport for a long time. We want to make sure that our agencies in this space are doing everything that they can to go after the real crooks—not the cleaners, the cafe workers and the baggage handlers, but the people who are doing the wrong thing.

I will finish on the point that I raised earlier—that is, the other people who access airside. We need to make sure that these eligibility criteria do not exclude union officials. We know that this government has a vendetta against unions. We know that they will do whatever they can to stop unions from being able to represent workers. We need to make sure these eligibility criteria do not exclude safety officers, whose purpose in going to the airport is to make sure the workplace is safe and that people are being treated properly and being paid the correct wages and conditions. We need to make sure that the eligibility criteria are not going to exclude people who are turning up to work to do a decent job. We need to make sure that the agencies in this space are not chasing after cleaners and hospitality workers and that they have the resources to go after the people who are doing the wrong thing.

Drugs are an issue in our community. There is an issue, and we need to make sure we have the right framework to deal with it. We need to make sure that we have the right resources in place to support people when they say, 'I need help and rehab.' It is disappointing that we again have bills coming into this place that focus on one aspect of the drugs and ice crisis that we have in this country. We all want to see this government put more effort and funding into front-line support services, for people who may want rehabilitation services; into our health agencies, who are doing the tough work on the front line; and into our hospitals and community groups.

It is time that the government got the balance right between supporting work on the ground through our not-for-profits and our health agencies and legislation like the bill we have before us. I look forward to the Senate inquiry and hope the government answers some of the questions that I have raised in this debate.

See this speech in context