Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have recently been reading a fascinating book produced last year by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage, called Great Southern Land, which examines the maritime exploration of Australia. There is an interesting section on the early protection of Australian sea routes, which outlines how the colonies initially felt comfortable under the protective shield of the British Army and the Royal Navy. It continues:

However, as the colonies developed their own economies, and as the demands of the empire changed, Britain began to demand joint funding of defence, then withdrew land forces altogether in 1870, and cut back on its naval presence. In response, the colonies started to build their own tiny navies. The protection of the major coaling stations located on the distant shipping routes at Thursday Island in Torres Strait and at Albany in King George Sound was a defence issue that concerned all colonies, and in 1890 they agreed to co-fund defensive fortifications at these places. Britain offered to provide the ordnance to arm them.

We do indeed have a rich maritime tradition. Indeed, our nation’s social history is positively linked with the ocean, from the arrival of the first Australians and the European excursions to our shores to the influx of new Australians by boat from Greece, Vietnam, the United Kingdom and eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the oceans and seas around Australia may also be the source of our most imminent threat. We have a vast coastline, and preventing terrorism in our region requires enhanced cooperation with our neighbours on maritime security. As the Leader of the Opposition has previously stated:

Australia is a maritime nation in a maritime region; the world’s largest island, next to the world’s largest archipelago. Increasingly, the problem of terrorism in south-east Asia is a maritime problem. From Jemaah Islamiyah’s bases in the southern Philippines, to the growing menace of piracy in the Malacca Straits, and through the traditional smuggling and piracy routes throughout the region, the threat is growing.

Since the attack on the French oil tanker the MV Limburg in Yemen in October 2000, the terrorist attacks of 11 September and the Bali bombings of 2002 and 2005, awareness about terrorism has increased. It is recognised that the maritime sector could be a target of terrorism or indeed a vehicle for terrorism. In the view of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, the stakes are extremely high as any important break time in the maritime transport system would fundamentally cripple the world economy. The OECD has previously stated that the government and transport authorities must act to tighten security of the freight container industry in order to reduce the possibility of terrorist attack.

More than 80 per cent of goods traded worldwide are transported by sea, much of them in containers. This involves thousands of container vessels and more than 250 million container movements every year. In Western Australia one of the main container terminals used by rail and eventually sea is in my electorate, in Belmont at Kewdale. They move something like one million containers a year. When you consider the possible threat of terrorism in this industry, you realise how big the issue is and how big the problem is.

Of course, the vulnerability of cargo containers has been the focus of international policy since the attacks of September 11 in 2001. Although security on ships and at ports has been strengthened in recent years, little has been done to address inland security risks relating to cargo containers. The OECD report notes that security measures should not unduly slow down or block the flow of goods nationally or internationally. In fact, countries have many options. They can increase security and actually facilitate the free flow of trade. Better coordination between transport authorities, Customs officials and police forces can help. The report also advises governments to work closely with transport authorities when designing and implementing security measures.

As I said, some good measures have been implemented in this regard and this side of the House supports this bill, but we condemn the government for not going far enough. We condemn the government for its failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews, to ensure foreign ships provide manifestos of crew and cargo before arriving at an Australian port and, most critically, to create a department of homeland security and establish an Australian coastguard to patrol our coastline.

The dangers posed to the maritime industry in our region are revealed by the fact that insurance premiums are going through the roof. I refer to a recent report in the New York Times on 24 August. It says:

Malaysian commandos captured a freighter after a 17-hour sea chase in the Strait of Malacca, maritime authorities said Wednesday, an event that has sharpened a debate between insurers and shipowners over premiums on voyages throughout the waterway.

The commander of Malaysia’s maritime police said that special operations commandos and marine police had recovered a vessel early Tuesday that had disappeared nearly three years ago after being reported as hijacked. After the ship initially sailed on in defiance of orders to stop, the crew of 20 Chinese sailors surrendered without a fight when commandos boarded the freighter from police vessels, he said.

The incident comes as many insurers have begun charging extra premiums for ship passengers throughout the strait, one of the world’s busiest seaways, in response to fears of a possible terrorist attack. While the recovered ship was linked to piracy, not terrorism, the strength of radical Islamic groups in Southeast Asia is increasingly worrying insurers.

Neil Roberts, a technical manager at Lloyds Market Association in London, which helped prepare a list of risky regions that included the strait, said insurers wanted to be financially ready in case an attack occurred.

‘They’re preparing to fund a loss, they’re building up a reserve to fund a loss, if and when that occurs,’ he said.

Bombings in Indonesia over the last several years—in Bali and at the Australian Embassy and a Marriott hotel in Jakarta—have focused attention on the country’s radical groups.

The risk to insurers has been that terrorists might ally themselves with the many seasoned pirates in Indonesia who conduct attacks on commercial vessels for profit, robbing crew members and sometimes kidnapping them as well.

The Joint War Committee, which represents the London marine insurance industry and includes members of both the Lloyds Market Association and the International Underwriting Association, issued a new list of risky regions around the world in June. The main changes were to remove a dozen countries from the list, mainly in the Middle East and West Africa, and to add the Strait of Malacca, the southern Gulf of Thailand and parts of the southern Philippines.

Labor supports the general thrust of the bill, because Labor has been calling for urgent maritime security reform for some time. But, unfortunately, as I have said, it does not go far enough. More reforms are urgently needed to improve Australian maritime security. The concern remains that there is essentially no consistency in the federal government’s approach. Australia desperately needs a coordinated, consistent approach to all levels of transport and maritime security.

In April 2005, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published the document Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security. The report states:

The basic problem in defence planning is determining how much defence is enough. Similarly, there’s a challenge in providing security against the threat of maritime terrorism: finding the right balance between assessments of risk on the one hand and realistic costs on the other. And there must also be contingency arrangements to deal with higher levels of threat within the assessed warning time.

The OTS and ASIO have assessed that there’s a terrorist threat to our shipping and ports, but it’s clear that our resources are quite inadequate to deal with higher levels of threat that could arise with only a short warning. The additional resources committed by the Australian Government have largely gone towards enhancing the infrastructure of its own agencies. Industry and state and local authorities are being expected to provide much of the capacity to deal with and prevent higher levels of threat, while also meeting their basic protection requirements. This is an unsatisfactory approach. Assuming that the Commonwealth accepts its own risk assessments, it must then be prepared to accept a greater part of the financial burden in countering the threat.

The report continues:

... there seems to be little testing of maritime security risk assessments and maritime counter-terrorism measures. They’re simply asserted by the Commonwealth, and the private sector and state authorities are expected to comply. This situation is unsatisfactory. There’s a need for greater transparency of the process to avoid excessive burdens being placed on industry and state governments.

I agree. Not only do we need greater transparency; we need a change of government to a government with the likes of the member for Brisbane, who understands what is required to best protect Australia’s maritime interests and ensure that those vessels entering Australia are not infiltrated with cargo or crew in the pay of Jemaah Islamiah or al-Qaeda.

Under Labor’s plan, a department of homeland security would be organised around two core responsibilities: border protection and protecting against terrorism attack within the border. Australia has a mainland border of some 36,000 kilometres. This figure is considerably higher if you include our various islands; although, I am not sure whether, under the current government, we include those islands in our calculations any longer. This is a government that has, of course, a Brisbane-line view of Australia’s security. Only Labor has a plan for Australia’s maritime and border security and integrity. I commend Labor’s view to the chamber.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My contribution to the debate will be very brief given that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has arrived to sum up. I understand that there are other pressures at the moment, so I will very quickly go over the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Maritime Security Guards and Other Measures) Bill 2005. I will then reflect on the amendment moved by the shadow minister, which I support. This bill amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to define the powers of maritime security guards. This bill will provide maritime guards with limited powers to request a person found within a maritime security zone to provide identification and reasons for being in the zone, to request a person found in the zone without authorisation to move out of the zone and, if that request is not complied with, to remove that person.

This bill is one of a series of bills that have looked at improving maritime security. We on this side of the parliament are very supportive of improvements to maritime security. It is a matter of great importance and should be a priority for the government. The opposition also recognise that maritime security is a specialist area and needs guards that are specialists in that area. I do not believe that the Howard government has taken maritime security seriously. I believe that its approach to maritime security is flawed and these limited measures in this piece of legislation and measures in other pieces of legislation, including an amendment that went through the parliament last week, are not tight enough.

The shadow minister moved an amendment in relation to the use of single voyage permits and continuing voyage permits. I have raised this issue a number of times in the parliament because I am very passionate about the use of these permits. These permits create a situation whereby foreign crews are not subject to the same level of security as Australian crews. You cannot even be assured that the papers that are being presented for those people are accurate. The government has really let the Australian people down in their monitoring of continuing voyage permits and single voyage permits. I can relate to the House, as I have on a number of occasions, my visit to one of these flags of convenience ships that have been granted a CVP and are cruising the coast of Australia. This ship sailed under a Maltese flag, it had a Greek captain and the crew were Burmese. To say that the crew were very nervous of the group that I was with when we visited the ship and that they appeared intimidated and frightened by the captain is an understatement.

Those crews are not subject to the same scrutiny as our Australian crews. They do not have to have the maritime security cards that Australian crews do. They do not have to have the same cards or level of identification and security checks that Australian crews and Australian maritime workers have.

I do not think it is good enough. The rules that apply for Australians should apply for foreign crews as well. The government has been very careless in its use of CVPs and SVPs, as was highlighted in the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Brisbane. We on this side of the House are very aware of the fact that to a large extent this is being driven by the fact that the government is consumed with a hatred of the MUA. Rather than looking at what is best for Australia, the government, since coming to power, has been more consumed with its hatred of the MUA and trying to get rid of the MUA from the face of the Australian shipping industry.

The other issue is the fact that many of these flag of convenience ships, with foreign crew who are not subject to the same scrutiny as our Australian crew, are carrying quite dangerous materials. My predecessor in this parliament was Peter Morris, who was chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure. He preceded the current chair, the member for Hinkler, who also is a man very committed to this area. When the committee prepared the Ships of shame report, it highlighted the issues that surround those foreign crews.

A follow-up international study conducted by a previous coalition minister, Mr Sharp, and Peter Morris produced a report titled Ships, slaves and competition. Once again, that reinforced the facts about the identification of the crews on foreign ships, the conditions they live under and their position of powerlessness. That position has not changed since that period, as the crews sail around the world on the rust buckets that this government continues to issue with single voyage permits. It is not good enough. Until this government addresses that issue, it is not taking maritime security seriously.

There is also the fact that the number of containers that are X-rayed is not sufficient. We do not think that is up to standard. The government needs to look at and embrace the Labor Party’s policy of establishing an Australian coastguard. I am very supportive of the amendment moved by the shadow minister in relation to a department of homeland security. We should look at enforcing procedures and laws similar to those in the US in relation to the coastguard and in Hong Kong in relation to the scrutiny of containers.

I am very supportive of the amendment moved by the shadow minister. I encourage the minister to accept the amendment and include it as part of the legislation.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by thanking the honourable members who have made a contribution to the debate on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Maritime Security Guards and Other Measures) Bill 2005. Naturally the government will not be supporting the amendment but I thank the opposition for their indication of a willingness to support the substance of the bill. Honourable members have raised a number of issues and I acknowledge the work of the honourable member for Shortland’s predecessor in his Ships of shame report, which certainly highlighted areas of concern, although it needs to be acknowledged that that report did not deal so much with security issues.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But there are security issues associated with the issues he raised—that is my point.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. He certainly was raising issues about the conditions on board the vessels and the quality of the vessels themselves. The opposition has, on a number of occasions in this and previous debates, endeavoured to present the view that somehow or other foreign seafarers are in some kind of privileged position regarding their rights in Australia compared with Australian crew. It is simply not true to say, as the honourable member for Shortland has suggested, that foreign seamen can wander around in secure zones at seaports in a way that Australian seamen cannot. Everyone going into a secure zone is required to have a card or be escorted.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is misrepresenting what I said. At no time did I say that foreign seamen were wandering around in secured areas. I said that their presence and the lack of scrutiny of their credentials prior to their ships berthing in Australia and circumnavigating Australia was the issue rather than the issue of them walking around secured areas.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is no point of order.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an interesting clarification of the honourable member’s views—

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought so too.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I welcome her latest statement. The reality is that everyone going into secure areas at ports will be required to have a maritime security identification card or alternatively they will have to be accompanied by somebody who does; that will apply irrespective of their nationality. I need to also point out that vessels coming into Australia are assessed for their security risk and there are checks of those on board the vessels. The security risk assessment takes account of all the relevant information about the ship, including its cargo, irrespective of which flag it flies and that assessment is independent of the Customs cargo manifest reporting requirements.

I am pleased to be able to report to the Main Committee that overseas vessels coming to Australia have been overwhelmingly compliant with those requirements. In another debate—I have not heard it in the context of this one—there were suggestions that as many as 15 per cent of ships were not complying with the law. My advice is that in the last year 100 per cent of ships have complied. There were some in the previous year—half a dozen or so—that did not and appropriate measures were taken to deal with those vessels. But the reality is that ships have been compliant with the crew reporting requirements and I think that that system, whilst it naturally took a little time to be settled into place, is now working well.

The honourable member for Holt raised some questions about whether it was appropriate to give powers to maritime security guards and suggested that it would be better if there were specialised law enforcement officers at the ports. The Australian government decided to give maritime security guards the move-on powers to enable them to deal with incursions into maritime security zones promptly in facilities which are sometimes distant from the nearest police presence. The powers are balanced with safeguards to limit any capacity to abuse that power. For instance, when requesting information from a person a maritime security guard must identify himself or herself, tell the person that they are authorised to request the information and advise the person that noncompliance is an offence.

It is reasonable to give maritime security guards these new powers to prevent unlawful access to maritime security zones at Australian ports, port facilities and on board ships. Their powers are limited and where more substantial action is required clearly police or other appropriately empowered people will be required to be called upon. So there is a role for police but we think that there are some responsibilities which can be effectively done by maritime security guards, and this legislation is putting in place arrangements to ensure that that kind of service can be provided in this way.

The bill strengthens the maritime transport and offshore facilities act by empowering maritime security guards to respond to unauthorised incursions into maritime security zones by persons, vehicles or vessels; authorising maritime security guards to seek information from persons found in maritime security zones, while placing safeguards on the exercise of these information-seeking powers; providing an appropriate offence regime to encourage compliance with maritime security guards’ requests; and providing new arrangements for directing a regulated Australian ship to operate at a higher security level when it is in waters identified as high risk.

The need for the additional powers for maritime security guards to remove unauthorised persons, vehicles and vessels from maritime security zones was identified during the government’s comprehensive assessment of Australia’s maritime security policy settings in 2004, and has been agreed by key industry leaders. Further consultation undertaken by my department with the maritime industry security companies, state and territory police, maritime unions and relevant Australian government agencies helped to refine and strengthen the framework for the move-on powers.

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has conducted an inquiry into the bill. In its report, tabled on 5 September 2005, it accepted the need for the bill and has recommended that it be passed. The regulations to accompany the bill are currently being developed in consultation with the industry, unions and security guard providers. The government looks forward to the passage of this bill to enable the maritime industry to draw upon these powers as soon as possible to enhance the safeguarding of Australian ports and ships. I thank those members who have made constructive contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Brisbane has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.