Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 is a bill which should have had a much earlier date. Labor has been calling for this for some time. It is a small step in the right direction. The Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 creates a new class of temporary visa known as, unsurprisingly, a maritime crew visa. The application process for the new visa will enable crew to be appropriately security cleared prior to their entry into Australia. In 2005, approximately 585,000 maritime crew travelled to Australia. This bill creates a new class of temporary visa which will enable crew to be appropriately security cleared before they enter Australia.

The new requirements under this bill will become mandatory as at 1 January next year. The requirements include a valid passport, a maritime crew visa and a document establishing a crew member’s employment on the vessel. As I said, this is a measure that Labor has been demanding for some time. Our national security is far too important to have a regular point of border entry where people who have not been subjected to appropriate security checks can enter.

Labor welcomes the fact that the maritime crew visa sets in place a reporting regime for foreign maritime workers coming into Australia, but the fact that shipping agents will be able to apply on behalf of members of crew indicates that the ASIO and AFP assessments that will occur might not be as comprehensive as would be required. Currently, foreign non-military maritime crew and their families are not required to make a formal application for a visa before coming into Australia. Special purpose visas are currently granted by operation of law. At present, maritime crew are granted the special purpose visas on arrival in Australia, following checks against the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s movement alert list. This process does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crews of these ships are allowed to enter into Australian ports—an issue that Labor has been saying for some time needs to be addressed.

I cannot understand why it has taken almost 6½ years since the events in September 2001 for the government to introduce a security checked visa for maritime crew. The government has only just adopted what has been a longstanding Labor Party policy to vet foreign maritime workers. Labor has consistently raised concerns about foreign vessels, whose crews had not been security vetted, carrying thousands of tonnes of explosive materials around coastal Australia.

In 2005, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published a damning report, Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security, on the state of Australia’s security arrangements. The report identified the danger of foreign flagged vessels carrying dangerous goods around the Australian coastline. This is a warning Labor has repeatedly made to the government. We have specifically warned about the dangers of foreign crewed, foreign flagged vessels, for which there has been no security check, carrying ammonium nitrate around Australia’s coastline. We have also pointed out that organisations like Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiah have acquired the skills and opportunities to launch a maritime security attack. These groups do operate in South-East Asian waters near our borders and in waters in which the incidence of piracy is actually the highest in the world.

On the last available figures, there are two acts of piracy per week in the waters just to our north-north-west—exactly the areas in which those organisations operate. Labor’s spokesperson on homeland security, the member for Brisbane, has reported that United States intelligence sources have observed that the al-Qaeda group is suspected of owning or having a long-term charter fleet of between 15 and 18 bulk general cargo vessels. Whilst it is believed that these vessels are used to generate revenue to support the group or to provide logistics for that network, it is also feasible that one of these vessels could be used as a floating bomb on some sort of mission, making use of an explosive just like ammonium nitrate. Against that background, you really want to have security checks on the crew. It is really important that that process be as watertight as it can possibly be.

The failure of the Howard government to ensure that these dangerous chemicals are handled by crews who have been properly checked and cleared—at the moment this applies only to Australian crews—is a great disgrace. Let us think about the consequences of that for a moment. An organisation which has access to maritime vessels also has expertise in maritime terrorism, has expertise in explosives and access to those explosives, yet the Howard government runs at a snail’s pace to upgrade the maritime security visa system.

Australian maritime workers, on the other hand, do undergo rigorous testing. To acquire their maritime security identity card, Australian maritime workers have to apply for AFP and ASIO background checks. Under the Howard government, foreign maritime workers do not undergo similar checks, even though they sometimes carry thousands of tonnes of explosives into and around Australia. That is dangerous and irresponsible. It has been a disturbing national security failure on behalf of this government to not address this concern until now.

While the government has improved security amongst Australian flagged ships, it is of great concern that invasive security and criminal background checks are not conducted on foreign crews. Furthermore, this government has misused the process of giving permits to foreign crewed ships to travel around Australian ports. A system has been in place for many years to enable foreign flagged, foreign crewed ships to operate the Australian coastal route by special permit. While that process appears to be sensible enough, this government has used it as a tool to attack the Australian crewed ships and their economic viability around Australian ports. As the shadow minister for homeland security and territories has repeatedly said, this government has seemingly handed out these permits like confetti. The government has not done the security checks on foreign crews that are done on Australian crews—and they are only done on Australian crews because we believe it is important for national security. We should not say that, because you have a foreign crewed ship, there cannot be a similar threat. It has been unacceptable.

While this government needs to provide more support to the Australian shipping industry, this bill at least goes some way to addressing the issue of security checks on foreign maritime crews. While the bill will enable crew to be appropriately security cleared before they enter Australia, it also contains a number of sensible measures to allow the visa to be ceased by declaration where it is considered undesirable for a person or class of persons to travel to, enter or remain in Australia. The bill also includes an express power to revoke such a declaration, to allow for situations where additional information may come to light about a person’s suitability to travel or to remain in Australia. These declarations and the capacity to revoke them are a very important practical measure that forms part of the bill. It is important that the government exercises it judiciously and sensibly, but obviously there is potential for national security considerations to give rise to a visa cancellation.

We also have the practical problem where, from time to time, the master of a vessel will make contact with Australian immigration and explain that a member of their crew has gone missing at the time the ship intends to leave. It is important in these situations for the minister to be able to cancel the visa. The reason why there is this revocation—it should be able to be made in a way that completely obliterates the declaration saying that the visa has gone—is that situations do occur, which are not just limited to the shipping industry but that industry is an example of where it does occur, where the master of the ship will believe initially that a member of the crew has gone missing and abandoned ship yet some hours later that crew member will be found in a tired or emotional state somewhere not too far from the port and, in fact, still be able to rejoin the vessel. In those circumstances it is entirely appropriate and those provisions are in the bill for good reason. They have to be exercised properly and the discretions that apply there have to be dealt with judiciously and carefully. Labor understands that the detail governing the new maritime crew visa will be set out in the migration regulations and we will have a look at the regulations when they are presented.

In the financial package that forms part of all of this, the government has allocated $100 million over five years for the introduction of the visa. In a media release dated 22 December 2005, the government announced a $100 million maritime crew visa system for all international seafarers visiting Australian ports after July 2007. The breakdown of that $100 million was announced as being $55.3 million for IT systems which would be associated with the new visa and to record sea crew movement records, to employ 19 additional regional sea ports officers to assist industry with the new visa and to conduct vessel boardings and manage compliance, and to employ additional staff in the immigration department’s entry operations centre to support the shipping industry. It also detailed that the Australian Customs Service will receive $39.5 million for the 66 new Customs officers who will enforce the new provisions as part of Customs vessel clearance processes. In addition, ASIO will receive $5.5 million under the package.

Labor will ask for further details regarding this expenditure, once we get to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s examination of the bill. It is imperative that this money be spent to improve Australia’s national security at our ports and along our coastline. It is overdue and much needed. Despite the government regularly wanting to make claims about being tough on border security, we have had not only the government’s long delay in introducing this bill but also Indonesian fishermen regularly entering Australian waters illegally.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they are being prevented.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If only it was as good as has been implied by the parliamentary secretary. Following a period of increased sightings of illegal fishing operators within the Australian exclusive economic zone by Coastwatch and the Australian Defence Force assets, there has been a fall more recently in the number of sightings.

However, there has also been a reported shortfall in aerial surveillance by Coastwatch over our northern waters. This has to be combined with the unavailability of the Navy’s Armidale class patrol boats, which are stuck in repair dock. The Armidale class patrol boats are meant to be used by the Navy to intercept illegal fishers. In September 2006, problems were detected with the fuel system and the Armidale fleet was sidelined. In February 2007, it was confirmed that the problems are still occurring and are proving difficult to fix. According to the Navy’s website, the Armidale class was supposed to:

... improve Navy’s capability to intercept and apprehend vessels in a greater range of sea conditions increasing surveillance, which will better protect Australia’s coastline.

This is disturbing news. It represents five months in which we have been relying on stopgap measures like the soon to be redundant Fremantle class to patrol our northern waters.

This government is simply not on top of its responsibility with regard to border security in those northern waters. More needs to be done. When it comes to illegal fishers, I would hope that the government members also acknowledge that more needs to be done. If they think that the current level of patrols aimed at illegal fishing is adequate, they should say so. Despite its delayed introduction, this bill is a welcome measure and a step in the right direction. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its failure to provide necessary maritime security and protect Australians, including:

(1)

its careless and widespread use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels with foreign crew who do not undergo appropriate security checks;

(2)

permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes; and

(3)

failing to ensure ships provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival”.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007. As the opposition spokesman, the member for Watson, said, it is an uncontentious bill. It is a timely bill. It addresses what has been seen to be an area that needs further tightening. That is agreed to by both sides of the House. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be in the House, would it? The purpose of this bill is to create a new temporary visa called the maritime crew visa. This visa will apply to the foreign crew of non-military ships bringing imported goods into Australia. It will also apply to their spouses and to their children. This visa will replace the special purpose visa, which is the current arrangement, and other similar visas granted by operation of laws in this category. The purpose for creating this new visa is to ensure an appropriate level of security checking prior to the granting of a visa in order to enhance border security. As we know, this government has been outstanding in the way that it has enhanced the border security of this country. I will say a little bit more about that in a moment.

I want to talk about the replacement of special purpose visas. The special purpose visa has been in operation for this class of persons for many years. In fact, it covers a range of persons. Some of the people who this special purpose visa covers include: the royal family, Asia-Pacific forces members, foreign force dependants, foreign naval force members, airline positioning crews, airline crew members and, believe it or not, persons visiting Macquarie Island. It covers children born in Australia of a mother who at the time of the birth held a special purpose visa, if only the mother is in Australia at that time. In other words, it covers a lot of contingencies.

Quite interestingly, and rightly, it covers Indonesian traditional fishermen visiting the territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The opposition just asked, ‘What are they doing about Indonesian and foreign fishermen and their incursions into Australian territorial waters?’ Maybe they did not read this. This arrangement has been in place for many years. Had these Indonesian traditional fishermen—and we know that this is a bit far-fetched, because they do not generally do this—applied for a special purpose visa, they probably would have been considered for one. It is all very well to say, ‘Shock horror!’ but there is an arrangement in place.

In terms of border security, the Australian surveillance operation in the north-west—and in particular around Ashmore Island and the coastal areas—has been very successful. Okay, every now and again over that huge expanse of coastline and sea we have one or two getting through. But they do not do too well when they get through because they are found pretty readily by the Australians living on the mainland and then rounded up. As we know, in the previous budget we set aside $5 million for a crematorium to burn Indonesian boats because of how many we had been discovering. The ships need to be burnt because of the vermin that the ships have in their hulls and inside them. We do not want them to reach the mainland or stay here, and they will eventually infest our waters if the ships are sunk offshore. Our border security is second to none. The rest of the world would give their right arms to have the surveillance and security that we provide for Australia’s border protection. As the member for Watson also said, this bill is funded to the tune of over $100 million over five years to introduce this maritime crew visa. Like the special purpose visa, it will not cost the applicant.

We know that something like 585,000 crew members travelled to Australia in 2005. And we know that previously they applied when they got here. This is why the bill is in place: because it has been seen to be an inadequacy. Now these people can make applications online themselves before they arrive and their agents can apply on behalf of the crew members. The member opposite asked, ‘What sort of security is that when an agent can apply for you?’ All I can tell you is that we have the best electronic database on people coming to this country. I can assure you that anybody who had some sort of form or record who applied electronically would be found out very quickly. The fact that an agent applies, to my mind, is not a flaw at all because they have to do it before they get here. Coming by boat you do not arrive within a day, so they have plenty of time to check the records of the people who are arriving.

In addition to this, the transition period that is going to be in place—and this will commence on 1 July this year and run until 31 December 2007—is a good six-month period. We are making it very clear that, if you have not organised yourself a maritime crew visa by then, there are going to be extreme sanctions, because it will be mandatory from 1 January 2008. The sanctions will come under the Criminal Code, and they will take very severe actions towards those who transgress.

With respect to the special purpose visa, we have heard those opposite talk about ‘ships of shame’. There is still this criticism, as you can see in the amendment moved by the member for Watson. The second part of the amendment says ‘permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes’. That is fine. I would imagine that any cargo that is onboard these boats is well known before it comes to Australia. We make sure that it is not only the crew that is surveilled but the sort of cargo they bring as well. I am sure the member for Batman, as nice a bloke as he is, will take issue again. Much of his contribution will be about foreign flagged ships trailing between Australian ports, and how—shock, horror!—this takes jobs away from Australians and terrible things will happen as a result of people on foreign flagged vessels.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right. One of the outstanding cases was the North Korean boat—

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You support exporting Australian jobs!

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not at all. Let me just say to that interjection: Australia is so blessed with jobs at the moment, we are actually importing jobs! In Western Australia, should the member for Batman ever cross the Nullarbor, he will find out that over there the state Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, Mr Eric Ripper, is begging our minister to relax the terms and conditions of the 457 visas to bring in more skilled workers—even unskilled workers. This is Mr Ripper, a senior member of the Labor Party, saying, ‘Please relax this so we can bring more workers into Australia because we can’t fill the jobs.’ That includes those on cargo vessels, merchant ships. Not only are we having trouble getting people in the Navy but we are having trouble stocking our ships. So, Member for Batman, we do not want to export Australian jobs at all.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you’re doing a good job of it!

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not at all. At the end of the day we are saying that we have plenty of jobs in Australia. Unemployment in Western Australia is at 3.1 per cent. Have you ever seen anything as good as that? It is 4½ per cent in Australia. What was the record the last time the Labor Party was in government? It got up to close to 11 per cent. What a shame.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Young people in particular were being done out of a job in this country under the previous regime. We have 4½ per cent—a stellar performance—and yet the member opposite talks about exporting jobs.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you: is there a fair arbitrator in this House or not? I think the fair people who are judging this will know that what I am saying is correct. At the end of the day we are making it easier for people to do business in Australia by allowing them to move in and out of ports with their ships and their families far more easily.

But let us talk about the celebrated case of the Pong Su, the North Korean vessel that came here. We should have known more about its crew. In the end we had a long court case in this country because it was a drug-running ship under the flag of the North Korean government. At the end of an interesting court case, which many people in this House would have known about, unbelievably most of them were let go. I believe only two were eventually dealt with. It was a strange set of events. But, anyway, that is the sort of thing we are trying to stop, and this will go a long way towards that.

On the last part of supporting this bill, the fact is that these amendments from the Labor Party are unnecessary. It is more about, again, falling in behind the old union mantra about non-unionised ships and all this sort of stuff. They would have us almost go back to the time when the ports were heavily unionised. We could go back to a crane rate of eight to 10 an hour instead of 25. We do not want to go back to that, but their political masters keep yanking their chain and wanting them to do that. At the end of the day this has nothing to do with the bill that we are talking about, yet I am sure you will hear the member for Batman banging on about the union arguments again here.

In conclusion, the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 is full of integrity. It does what we need it to do. It is done in a timely way. It is good that it will start on 1 July this year. I support the bill.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Canning. But, to disappoint his expectations, the member for Blaxland will bang on first!

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First let me thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that I will be in the chair next, for your indulgence and help in this regard, and also the member for Batman for allowing me to speak on the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 prior to him so that I can then go in the chair.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My pleasure.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be my pleasure to listen to the member for Batman, as I have listened in the Main Committee and in the House previously, when the member for Batman as the relevant shadow minister and I as a backbench member have demanded this very action of the government time and time again. It is about time that we have this legislation. We support this piece of legislation.

Up until now this government have allowed in the order of 585,000 foreign crewmen a year to pass through Australian ports with what is effectively a global visa—‘You’re going to come through: here’s the ship; it’s got foreign crew and families on it as well. Here’s a temporary visa or a special purpose visa; that’ll cover everyone.’

Terrorism is worldwide. Terrorism is perpetrated in all Western countries; it is also perpetrated in Moslem countries. It is perpetrated in ports, in airports and against major buildings. You name it, they will do it. What the member for Batman and I have repeatedly said on this particular issue is that this is a fundamental hole in our national security and it has to be plugged, because, if you do not know who the crew are on a particular vessel and you do not know or you do not know early enough what the nature of the cargo is—and if you are not aware and prescient because of that foreknowledge—you cannot adequately take the steps that are necessary to forestall a potential terrorist incident.

As I have underlined in previous debates on bills associated with this and the maritime area, we have a simple, fundamental problem. Ammonium nitrate in tanker loads is brought to Australia by foreign crewed vessels. They enter our ports from one end of the country to the other. But ammonium nitrate is not only used as an agricultural fertiliser. It is used as a bomb in the mining industry. It has a massive explosive effect, and a ship laden with ammonium nitrate could be used to obliterate the whole CBD of Sydney. Because no-one has done it before does not mean that they will not do it if they have the opportunity.

I wish the MigrationAmendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 would take effect before 1 July this year; it should have been in previously, we know. That is one of our criticisms: that the government announced this in 2005. The government does this; it is like vapourware, which is common in the IT industry, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, who is at the table, will know. You announce a product that does not exist. Even Apple has done it with its last few products, but we hope they are actually coming down the chute. It is vapourware; it does not exist until it eventually gets into place.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill that we dealt with earlier today came five full years after the first steps were taken. This is not a government that is rushing to improve our national security. It is one that has to be whipped mercilessly into doing the right thing in defence of Australians. We need to ensure that we are not only vigilant but diligent in working our way through what is on those vessels and the people who are there, because having a global visa is no real help at all. So there is a shipful of people; we do not know who they are. We do not know if anyone has got a track record.

Putting this into place will be costly—$100 million over five years. But it is a necessary cost in a globalised world of globalised trade, in a world that has not just been like this since September 11 2001 but, if you look at the attacks on ships, has been like this since back in the early 1990s. There was the attack on the USS Cole that was perpetrated by al-Qaeda out of Yemen. And, if you look at a series of other attacks on our embassies and elsewhere, you see the attacks can come in any form and any shape. They are meant to be very flexible in how they approach it.

Previously, when we have discussed this, part of the argument people have put up is, ‘Well, we shouldn’t really be too worried about this because they haven’t done it yet.’ But that is the very point in relation to these terrorist organisations. They are not bound by a timetable and a scale of values or a scale that says, ‘Well, we can only do this if we have done it before and practised it enough.’ We know from what was discussed earlier today that dozens or up to 50 people were preparing to undertake the most massive attacks on aircraft that we have ever potentially seen and that thousands of people could have died in journeys to the United States from Britain if there had not been an active intervention by the British police and if they had not taken the people who were conspiring to take liquids, gaseous material and electronic material that, once put together on the plane, would be very effective bombs.

So we need to be aware, open, elastic, flexible and thoughtful about how we secure ourselves as a nation and how we ensure that we are not going to end up in the soup in this regard. I support the amendments. They are general in the points they are making. They underline the fact that this government really has to be pressed into these areas, but I simply underline the past history of argument with regard to this, and what the member for Batman, no doubt, while I am in the chair, will be banging on about—to use your phrase, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is fundamental to our security. The government just does not tend to think about port security at all because we have not had that major attack. The last thing you want to do is to be trapped in a mode where you are preparing against the previous attack, because you know the next one is going to be different. So, given your felicity on this, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the member for Batman, and I will conclude my one brief speech for this day.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to address the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007, which I think is a very important bill before the House. In doing so, can I say on behalf of the opposition that we have been banging on about these issues for a number of years. I first raised the issue of maritime security and the question of proper security checks of overseas crew when I was shadow minister for migration in the lead-up to the 1998 election. That is a considerable time ago. So it is only now, because of September 11, that the Australian government has got serious about aviation and maritime security in Australia.

The truth is that the opposition have raised these complex issues for a number of years. We saw the gaping holes which created a major potential risk to Australia in aviation and maritime security long before the Howard government did. I am very pleased to see this bill come before the parliament because it addresses—and it is about time—the historical dereliction of duty on the part of the Howard government to get serious about maritime security and carry out comprehensive security checks on foreign crews.

This is something the maritime industry, including employers, workers and their unions, have wanted for years. It is something that not only the Australian community but also the international community rightfully expects in the global fight against terrorism. The truth is that Australia—which, as a trading island nation, is heavily dependent on the aviation and maritime industries—has been lagging behind with respect to its responsibilities. As shadow minister for transport, the area where this bill is of vital importance, I believe this is a very important issue. It has been publicly raised on many occasions, both outside and inside the parliament, by Labor members and senators.

Let me now deal with a few facts. Until now, when it came to foreign crews, the names on a ship’s manifest had been checked against existing databases—usually after the ship is berthed—to see if any of them were persons we did not want in Australia. Imagine that system—checking names more often than not after the ship is berthed. The damage could have already been done. The Howard government says that it is vigilant about the security of Australia. It has been walking tall and priding itself on its practical approach to securing Australia as a nation. Today’s debate proves that, yet again, the government is tired and lazy; it is playing catch-up on complex policy issues. The current system effectively means that there is no way of knowing whether the people on the ship are who they say they are and that no security checks are carried out on them in any case. That is the system that for far too long the Howard government has told the Australian community is satisfactory.

But there is a different system in place for our own seafarers, which is why I have not been able to understand or fathom the reasoning behind the approach adopted by the Howard government to date. There is one set of rules for foreign seafarers and a far more demanding and rigorous set of rules for Australian seafarers. I agree with those rigorous rules which have been applied to our own aviation and maritime workers in recent times. As is appropriate, Australian seafarers have been subject to the most rigorous and thorough security checks by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO, which are the appropriate agencies to carry out such security checks. That was part of the aviation and maritime security regime put in place by the department in close cooperation and consultation with the opposition in the last parliament. It also involved closer consultation from both sides with industry, including the workers’ representatives to the Australian trade union movement, who adopted in a cooperative way what were demanding policy issues. All involved in the development of those acts of parliament going to aviation and maritime security are to be commended for the effort that they put into developing the regime which currently applies in Australia.

There is one outstanding demand that the opposition raised with the government during that debate: doing something about foreign seafarers. Our own seafarers are required to hold a current maritime security identification card, similar to those used to clear workers in our airports. That is something the opposition supported. Aviation security identification cards certify that the holders are people of good character and good background who can work in security sensitive areas. This is an exceptionally important security measure and the Australian public can rest assured that they are in safe hands when in Australian airports.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the way this government has handled maritime security. As my colleague the member for Brisbane and shadow minister for homeland security recently said—and I think he put it exceptionally well:

... the Howard government hand out permits for those flag of convenience crews like it was a Friday night chook raffle at the local pub.

That says it all: ‘If you want one, you can have one. Don’t worry about us; we are not going to do a thorough security check as to your background. We are not particularly worried about foreign crews, about whom we know nothing, coming to Australian ports.’ These foreign crews are sometimes crewing vessels carrying ammonium nitrate, which, if not handled correctly and safely, represents a potential time bomb for the Australian community. The Howard government is to be condemned for its neglect.

This bill is here today because of demands by the opposition over an extended period. It also represents what the Australian community expects and what the Australian maritime industry was prepared to accept long ago. Foreign crews and their families will now be quite appropriately required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia. This bill will create a new maritime crew visa to replace the current special purpose visa and other visas currently in place, which were subject to corruption and rorting—but that did not worry the Australian government. Importantly, if this bill is carried by both houses, it will result in each foreign crew member and the spouse and dependent children of such a crew member being subjected to security checking before a visa is granted. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you have said on numerous occasions in the House and in the Main Committee, it is about time. It is long overdue.

But the opposition, as reflected in previous speeches by my colleagues today, has a very firm view that there is much more that still needs to be done when it comes to Australian maritime security. I join my colleague the member for Watson and shadow minister for immigration in supporting his second reading amendment condemning the government for its failure to provide necessary maritime security and, in doing so, creating a security environment that leaves Australians exposed on a number of fronts.

That is what the debate is about: the fact that the Howard government for far too long has tolerated a situation in which we, as a community, have been exposed unnecessarily to weaknesses in our antiterrorism regime. The Howard government is also to be condemned for its failure to provide the right policy and regulatory framework for a strong Australian shipping industry. We are a trading nation, heavily dependent on our exports of goods and services. Central to our economic future are viable and safe maritime and aviation industries.

We will continue to bang on, in this parliament and in the Australian community, about the misuse of ships of convenience by the Howard government. Ships of convenience were embraced by the Hawke and Keating Labor governments on the basis that they were about supporting Australian industry. We also accepted that in some instances Australian crewed vessels were not available. So it was then a question of how to develop a practical system which worked to the benefit of Australian industry and job creation. That is why we put in place, and used sparingly, single and continuous voyage permits as a measure to handle peak shipping demand periods. That is what it was about.

That is the system that the Howard government confronted when it was elected in March 1996. But unfortunately, on election, the Howard government’s ideological approach to shipping in Australia was about exporting Australian jobs. It had one objective in mind: it was hell-bent on destroying the Australian maritime unions. It was not prepared to accept that over the previous 13 years those unions, on behalf of their workforce, had confronted huge change. The unions understood that for the coastal and international shipping industry in Australia to survive they had to be competitive, and that meant a proper cooperative dialogue between government, industry and maritime unions to create an environment where we could compete internationally and domestically.

But the Howard government, in its extreme campaign against the rights of Australian workers, has used single and continuous voyage permits to replace Australian ships and Australian seafarers on a routine basis. It has done so without any proper consideration. It turned its eye away from the main game. In embracing single and continuous voyage permits, it accepted a system of foreign crews to the detriment of Australian jobs, which effectively exposed us on the security front.

On the question of Australian seafarers I want to say that we once had a proud Maritime College in Tasmania. It was a college that prided itself on training young Australians and created terrific career opportunities in the seagoing industry. The truth is that in the 21st century our Maritime College in Tasmania has had to focus more on overseas students for export earnings than the training of Australia’s young—our best. In doing that they have denied young Australians employment opportunities in a terrific industry. The government are responsible not only for exposing our nation to major security risks but also for ripping apart the Australian Maritime College and undermining decent training opportunities for young Australians. They are to be condemned on all fronts.

These are just a couple of examples of the failures of the Howard government to ensure that, as required by law, all ships do the right thing by Australia. What is security identification about in terms of crewing? It is about all ships advising details of their cargo and crew 48 hours before they reach an Australian port. What is wrong with that? It is not as if Australia is less than 48 hours from the major shipping ports of the world. It is a fair request by the Australian government. I raise this issue because last year information given to the Senate informed the Australian community that just 67 per cent of ships coming to Australian ports actually complied with that fundamental requirement. A third of ships simply did not comply with the law, and the Howard government, yet again, did nothing about fixing this problem.

Half of those ships did not inform authorities about their cargo and crew until they had actually berthed. That is an amazing situation. ‘Come in; we’ll open the gates. Tie up. We don’t know who’s on board, and if you do damage on the way in, so what? It’s not our concern because we are more concerned about destroying maritime unions and the Australian coastal international shipping fleet. If you endanger the Australian public on the way through then so be it, because ideology counts more than jobs for Australians and doing the right thing by the Australian community.’ I simply say that it is too late, then, to act.

The Howard government are exposing our maritime points of entry to the hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods like explosive grade ammonium nitrate, to the potential for terrorists to smuggle explosives and weapons into this country and to the potential for other criminal activity, including drug running, to run riot—to the detriment of the Australian community. Why haven’t they acted? They have turned a blind eye to those serious threats to the wellbeing and economic prosperity of Australia.

I am also concerned about another problem. I turn to the lack of commitment by the Howard government to work with industry and the maritime unions to ensure that well-trained, highly skilled Australian seafarers maintain their pre-eminent role in a growing export opportunity—the LNG industry. It was appropriate—albeit because of government interference—that we signed major long-term LNG contracts with China. But the truth is that, because of interference by the Prime Minister and pressure placed on the private sector, the costs we have reaped from those exports were less than what we could have achieved. The Prime Minister was more concerned, as usual, about his political hide at that particular point in time, and he wanted a huge export contract to take pressure off him.

Guess what else he did in negotiating and pressuring the private sector about that contract? He not only sold Australia short on the issue of export earnings in terms of the price we actually achieved but also effectively neglected the proper process of ensuring that some Australian seafarers were employed on those ships taking that very valuable cargo to China. If you have a look at the contracts, you see that there is no mention of Australian seafarers. So here we are exporting this highly valuable product, in a world that is worried about energy security, to nations such as China, and there is not one job for Australian seafarers. This government wants to say to the Australian community in the lead-up to the next election: ‘We care about jobs. We can handle the issue of security.’ The facts tell a different story.

For over 25 years—and this is what the government should have been thinking about in those LNG contracts—the continuity of operations agreement between the North West Shelf venture and the MUA has ensured the safe, reliable and on-time delivery of LNG cargoes to customers around the world, particularly Japan. The agreement has served industry well and has served Australia well. It is about doing the right thing by all. It is one of the strengths of the Australian LNG industry, which is also going to grow in importance in the foreseeable future.

We all know that Australian seafarers are properly trained and skilled. They are skilled in pollution control, the safety of life at sea, dangerous goods handling and storage, and so on. You know the issues as well as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton. But we do not have the same degree of confidence in the current regime when it comes to foreign crews. We are already exposing our maritime points of entry to the safety, security and environmental hazards of foreign crews handing dangerous goods like explosive grade ammonium nitrate without any knowledge as to their training and skills in this area. I would be concerned if Australian involvement in the LNG transportation task is weakened and replaced with further flag of convenience ships because I do not want to see this risk extended to the LNG trade.

In conclusion, Australia’s reputation as a reliable LNG supplier is at stake because of government policy on flag of convenience vessels. This is important for the security not only of our ports but also, importantly, of our customers’ ports. They want reliability and security of supply. That is the key to signing contracts in a tough global world. The second reading amendment has a practical focus on the weaknesses of the Howard government on issues of vital concern to the Australian community. It is about Labor supporting the step forward this bill takes in improving security checks on foreign crews. Labor would also like to see the minister and the department doing much more to improve maritime security in this country and to maintain a strong Australian shipping industry based on creating jobs for Australians. That is what this is about: guaranteeing employment and training opportunities for Australians, something the Howard government is not concerned about. All it is doing at the moment is living off the back of the wonderful resource boom in which Australia is doing so well.

So I commend the bill to the House but in doing so ask the Australian community to have regard to the second reading amendment moved by the opposition, because it rams home to this government in no uncertain terms that it has only done part of the job, as usual. It is a tired, worn-out government and it is time for a change. I say in conclusion that these changes are long overdue.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Batman in this debate on the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007. I think the shadow minister for transport has in the last 20 minutes set out a very clear case for a change of government and a comprehensive plan for dealing with the transport industry, particularly maritime transport, which is sadly lacking from the current government. The bill before us is a small—indeed, far too small—step in dealing with the issue of foreign crews coming to Australian ports on maritime vessels. It establishes a new visa for the purpose of maritime transit only. The measures in the bill are unexceptional and supported, but it is a small step that goes only a tiny way towards dealing with the really important issue associated with this.

We do not need another piece of administration, another piece of red tape or another piece of paper for the bureaucrats at the immigration department to deal with. That is not why the government should be doing this—although I have to say that it will accomplish little else. We need a special visa for people who are on foreign ships coming to our shores and ports because there is a problem of border protection. For years Labor has been arguing that the current system is flawed and that we need to do something about it. This bill, I am sorry to say, makes barely a dent in that cause.

This is in fact the fifth bill that the parliament has dealt with today. Where are the government speakers? Where are the members of the Liberal and National parties? This is the fifth bill today we have dealt with in this parliament, and the total number of Liberal and National Party members who have spoken today is five. They can muster barely one person per bill. The level of arrogance and disdain this government now shows, not just to the people of Australia but also to the parliament, is palpable.

It is not just today. I invite people to go through the Hansard record of recent weeks and have a look at the arrogance of the Howard government. They no longer think that this parliament should even be a chamber for debate. They no longer feel the need to have members of the Liberal and National parties bother to come into this chamber and explain why the bills they are voting for are good and adequate bills. They do not even deign to grace the parliament with their presence during debates of this kind. This is in fact an important issue. I note that the member for Mallee, John Forrest, is in the gallery. He is at least observing if not participating in this debate. But it is a crying shame that members of the government do not even think it is worth participating in debates of this kind.

As I was about to say, this is an important matter. We are talking about border security at a time when that security is as much a part of our national wellbeing as national security has traditionally been regarded. In a world in which non-state terrorism presents a threat globally, ensuring that our borders are not porous is important to all of us. That is what this bill should be doing, but it does not. What this bill does is to create a bit more red tape. It is a good thing to have a special visa for people who come to Australia as seafarers, but let us just have a look at how this operates. There is no security vetting of the people involved here. These visas are going to be provided to people not because we know they are who they claim to be, not because there has been a police or ASIO check of their background, not because we know they are not part of a terrorist network, but simply because we know they are on the crew of a vessel coming here for work purposes. This in no way will assist in making Australia’s maritime borders more secure.

I wholeheartedly support the second reading amendment that has been moved by my colleague the shadow minister for immigration, because it sets out the folly of this government’s approach to these matters. This government has paid little regard to the economic welfare of the Australian maritime industry. It has paid little regard to the security of Australia through our maritime borders. It has been far more interested in an ideological campaign to attack the Maritime Union and the seafarers of Australia. I think that is one of the reasons why this government, like no other before it, has handed out permits for foreign crewed vessels not just to come to Australian ports but to carry the coastal trade. This has been a major problem for the industry. But leave that aside in the context of this debate—this is a major issue of national security.

We have a situation in which Australian seafarers are required to undergo rigorous and invasive security checks. They have to do that in order to get a maritime security identity card, an MSIC, and that is totally appropriate. On this side of the House, Labor members support the need to have security checks done on those who work in these important, sensitive areas, and clearly those involved in our ports, borders, airports and the like are in sensitive areas. Australian workers who want to become seafarers are obliged to undergo very thoroughgoing invasive checks. To put this into some perspective, these are checks that typically would involve not just the normal cursory police overview; the Federal Police do a thorough check of individuals and their backgrounds, and ASIO would also be involved in ensuring that the people to whom these security passes are given are fit and proper people with whom there are no concerns. That is the standard we apply to our own citizens. But, if you happen to be a foreign citizen, no such investigation is undertaken. If you happen to be a foreign citizen, this bill will allow you to get a visa, come to Australia and enter Australian ports without ever undertaking any security check remotely like the security check that Australian seafarers are required to undergo. That seems, I am sure, to all fair-minded Australians to be an unfair, unbalanced process, and yet that is exactly what the Howard government has done.

But it is worse, because we do not just allow those foreign workers on foreign vessels to come here without undergoing the same security checks we demand of Australians; we then let them undertake coastal freight trade around the Australian coastline—and not just any freight. We allow them to take explosives, and we allow them to take dangerous chemicals. I have lost count of the number of occasions on which I have raised in this parliament my concerns about that very matter, including the case, about 18 months ago, of a foreign flagged vessel coming to Gladstone when the then Leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley and I stood at the port conducting a press conference. On board that vessel, which was foreign flagged, foreign crewed, was a very large quantity of ammonium nitrate. Ammonium nitrate is a very dangerous, potentially explosive substance. It has been the chemical of choice for terrorist bombers for many years in many parts of the world. The Australian government have happily allowed foreign crews that they know nothing about to carry explosives of that kind around our coastline. They think that is an acceptable procedure when, at the same time, an Australian wanting to do that would have to undergo those rigorous security checks to which I have referred, and they would have to hold a maritime security identity card. But no such card, no such check, is demanded of those foreign crews.

The situation we have seen with this government is not just its failing to legislate—or its failing to fully legislate, as this bill fails to fully legislate to deal with the concerns that we on this side of the parliament have raised—it is its failing, even when it legislates, to implement matters. There is a requirement for ships coming to Australia to provide details of cargo and crew 48 hours before they arrive in Australia. In fact, they do not. Indeed, the most recent figures show that the situation has got worse, not better. My memory is that it has grown now to about 15 per cent of ships that do not provide details of their crew or cargo as required two days before arriving in Australian ports. What does the Australian government do about that? It does absolutely nothing. So we have a law that is a good law, but the government just fails to enforce it.

This matter was raised a couple of years ago by many members in the Labor Party, including me but others as well, and in the 12 months that followed government inaction has seen this problem get worse, not better. It is hard to believe that any government could do that. But to have a government like this one that likes to talk about security as often as it does, a government that never knocks back a photo opportunity if there are military personnel to be seen, a government that puts the best political spin it can on all security debates but in the process ignores the real security interests of Australia, is the height of hypocrisy. It is hard for those involved in the industry to understand why a government that talks so much about security in fact does so little.

We have ships that come to Australia that do not even tell us what their cargo or crew is until after they have got here. You do not need to have a keen imagination to understand the threat that presents. By the time the ship has come to port, if there are people on board with ill intent, if there are explosives or other chemicals on board that are dangerous, they do not actually need to wait until they get to the harbour to cause a problem. But of course they do get to the harbour. They get to Botany Bay. They pull up in our largest city without ever disclosing who their crew is or what their cargo is. That is an appalling situation. It is not a lot better when they do tell the government—when they do tell Customs—because what happens is that the master of the vessel provides details of who is in the crew. Frankly, Customs would not have a clue whether they were who they claimed to be or not. They may be those individuals or they may be completely different people.

All of this is a worry. It is a bigger worry, I have to say, when you contemplate that in our corner of the world we have the worst incidents of piracy on the planet. Just to our north-north-west, in the last year for which statistics are available, there were two acts of piracy every week on average. It is thought that most of those acts of piracy were conducted by criminals for profit. But we should not be so lax or comfortable as to think that terrorists do not also understand the potential that that provides. The islands from which those pirates operate also happen to be the same areas in which Jemaah Islamiah and Abu Sayyaf are known to have operatives and people who are sympathetic to them. It is not beyond the realms of possibility—although I hope it is not probable—that those pirates, acting on behalf of terrorists, could seize a vessel and then use it for their own purposes. Indeed, I know countries in the region are deeply concerned about that possibility and are looking to take steps about that possible threat.

Are we doing that in Australia? No, we are not. We are passing laws that we do not implement, such as the requirement to provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arriving, or we are passing half-baked laws that do not actually fix the security problem, such as the bill before us at the moment. This government has handed out permits for those foreign crewed, foreign flagged vessels with gay abandon. I have described it in the past as the government handing them out like tickets in a Friday night pub chook raffle, and that is pretty much what it is. Just look at the statistics. They have skyrocketed under this government. It does not need any probable reason to do it. You ask for a permit and this government will give you one. Will it check that the foreign crew and the foreign flagged vessel are up to standard, that the people are who they claim they are and that they are not security risks? No, it will not. It is an appalling state of affairs, and the creation of this particular visa will not solve that problem.

The Howard government’s performance in this area of maritime security has been one of indifference and arrogance. That indifference and arrogance is replicated in this chamber by the absence of members of the government who do not even think that it is worth turning up to debate these matters. As I commented earlier, we have dealt with five bills today in this parliament. For every one of the bills, the government could find one person and one person only. That is a disgrace. The Australian people should be told about that. It really is an affront to the people of Australia and to this parliament. But it is typical of an arrogant government that has simply been around for too long. I could not have agreed more with the member for Batman when he concluded that this government has been here too long and is too arrogant and that it is time it went. Later this year, that is exactly the verdict that I think the people of Australia will reach.

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

I must say that I agree with what the previous speaker had to say about the government’s attitude. It is very disturbing, as I am standing here in this House to speak on what I believe is an extremely important piece of legislation and on which we have had five members including myself speak, that the government could only find one member who was remotely interested enough to put his name down to speak. The Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 is extremely important legislation that goes to the very safety of our shorelines here in Australia. I have spoken many times in this House on maritime issues, maritime safety and protecting our coastline. Shortland is a coastal electorate and, as such, I believe that it behoves me to raise issues that affect the security of the people whom I represent in this parliament.

I see this legislation as very disappointing. I think it has taken the government a very long time to even come to the position of introducing this legislation, which is half-baked and will not secure our coastline. It is legislation that treats foreign mariners in a different way to the way it treats our own Australian mariners. It is an absolute disgrace, and one of the legacies of the Howard government when we look back will be that it has overseen the destruction of the Australian shipping industry, an industry that we should be working to grow here in Australia because it is a source of many jobs and of great knowledge that we can sell to overseas nations. Instead of that, the Howard government has allowed our seafarers and merchant seamen to lose their standing within the industry worldwide. It is an industry that has faltered under the Howard government and one that should have grown. I think the government members need to hang their heads in shame.

I intend to go through the legislation before us tonight, then I will turn to the amendment and debate some of the issues that I believe are extremely important and that link particularly to the amendment. Currently, foreign non-military maritime crews and their families are not required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia. That in itself is a condemnation of the government. Special purpose visas are currently granted by operation of law. The process does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crews of these ships are allowed to enter Australia—and I will talk more about that in a moment. It creates a new class of temporary visa to be known as a maritime crew visa.

The application process for the new visa will enable crews to get security clearance before they enter Australia. Shouldn’t that be happening now? At a time when terrorism is a global threat, we have been prepared to sit back and take a second-class approach to the security of overseas crews when they enter Australia. The visa can cease by declaration where it is considered undesirable for a person or a class of person to travel in, enter or remain in Australia. The bill also includes express powers to revoke such a declaration to allow for situations where additional information may come to light about a person’s suitability to travel and remain in Australia.

Looking at the history of this legislation, on 22 December 2005 the government announced $100 million for a maritime crew visa system for all international seafarers visiting Australian ports after July 2007. That was December 2005, and here we are at the end of February—we may as well say March—debating legislation that comes into force in July this year. This shows very little commitment to security and very little commitment to ensuring that international seafarers have some sort of security check, albeit a security check that will be nowhere near the level of the security check that our own seafarers must undergo.

A large component of the money will go to IT systems, and there will be 19 additional regional seaport officers through the Customs department. I understand Customs will receive $39.5 million for 66 new Customs officers. The regional seaport officers will link into the IT system to check records and sea crew movements.

The maritime crew visas will replace special purpose and other visas currently granted by operation of law to foreign crews of non-military ships. The granting of maritime crew visas will require a formal application to be made and will allow each foreign crew member, spouse and dependent child of such a crew to be subject to a security check before being granted the visa. I emphasise again: that security check will be nowhere near the level of security check that Australian seafarers undergo.

The bill will create a new class of temporary visa called a maritime crew visa. This visa will be valid only for travel and entry to Australia by sea. Maritime crew visa holders must enter Australia at a proclaimed seaport unless an authorised officer authorises entry in another way or in an emergency situation. Maritime crew visas will cease, as I have already said, if the minister declares that that should be the situation.

I turn now to the amendment, which I think encapsulates all the concerns that I have surrounding this issue. The first point in the amendment goes to the issue of the use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels with foreign crews and emphasises that these foreign crews do not undergo proper security checks. The use of CVPs and SVPs has burgeoned under the Howard government. This has led to a downgrading of the Australian shipping industry. It has led to a situation where our shorelines are less safe than they were before, and it will take years to turn this around.

It is interesting that, whilst the Howard government has allowed this situation to develop, countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have been investing in developing their own maritime industry. They recognise the importance of having a strong maritime industry. In Australia, an island nation, I think we need to recognise that the waters surrounding Australia are highways, like the highways that pass through the country. They are highways with ships circumnavigating the country, and I do not think the Howard government has recognised this.

The SVPs and CVPs are issued to foreign owned ships that sail under a foreign flag and are crewed by a foreign crew. I visited these ships that have been issued with CVPs and SVPs within the waters of Australia. The one that I often talk about is the Angel III. I visited it in the port of Newcastle. That ship sailed under a Maltese flag, it was crewed by a Burmese crew, and the captain of the ship was Greek. I asked the captain of the ship whether the crew spoke English, and he said, ‘No, they don’t.’ Then I looked around at all the safety signs on the ship and I found that they were written in English. I also asked the captain if the crew spoke Greek, and he said, ‘No, they don’t’—and any other signs that were around the ship were in Greek. I put it to the House that this hardly demonstrates safety on the ship and it demonstrates that there is very poor communication on these ships.

At a time when security is a major issue, and when Australian seafarers and maritime workers are required to obtain maritime security identification cards, it seems rather strange to me—and somewhat incongruous—that foreign seafarers are not subjected to the same level of security. They are not subjected to any security at the moment. The requirement is that 48 hours notice for crews and cargoes be given before a ship enters the port. It will not be a surprise to members on this side of the House that that requirement is only adhered to in 67 per cent of cases. That means that 33 per cent of the ships entering Australian harbours do not adhere to that rule. Fifteen per cent do not advise about the crew or the cargo until they actually berth. From my perspective, that is a major security issue. There is obviously no effective security screening of those crews that enter Australian ports. I believe that this has enormous security implications for us as a nation.

If we go back to the Angel III, which I spoke of a moment ago, the Burmese crew who were on that ship appeared to me to be extremely intimidated by the captain of that ship. I would argue that there is absolutely no way that we could ensure the safety and security of the people in that port. These ships carry very dangerous substances—for example, ammonium nitrate—and, while they are in port and as they are travelling around the coastline, they have the potential to create an enormous devastation. I would argue very strongly that that is a grave security risk to our nation.

Another example that I often use is the MV Wallarah, which was a little ship that used to take coal from Catherine Hill Bay to the port of Newcastle. It was a wholly owned Australian ship and was crewed by Australian seafarers. It was a ship that we in the Hunter were very proud of. Unfortunately, under the Howard government regime, the MV Wallarah is no longer an Australian owned or flagged ship. It now sails under the flag of another country and is now crewed by overseas seafarers, yet these seafarers no longer have to undergo the security checks that our Australian seafarers underwent.

Any reasonable person would ask why a government would allow an industry that is so vital to an island nation such as Australia to be destroyed. I can only come up with one answer, and that is that this government has destroyed our Australian seafaring industry and our Australian shipping industry purely and simply on ideological grounds. This government is driven by a hatred of unions, and on its top-of-the-pops list is the MUA. The government has a great hatred for the MUA. This government has allowed our Australian shipping industry to be destroyed simply because it has sought to destroy the MUA by allowing these CVPs and SVPs to be issued to foreign crewed ships and ships that sail under foreign flags. As I demonstrated earlier when I talked about the Angel III, they can all be from different countries—for example, Malta, Greece and Burma. I think this government really needs to look at what is good for the nation and what will benefit Australia as a whole. The thing that will benefit Australia is a shipping industry that is strong.

A number of inquiries have been conducted into the shipping industry. My predecessor in this parliament, Peter Morris, was Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure when they conducted an inquiry into the shipping industry and tabled in this parliament a report called Ships of shame. That report demonstrated the conditions that those foreign seafarers work and live under and the level of respect that they have. The report showed that these crew were definitely inferior to our Australian seafarers. I put to the House tonight that these crew are much more likely to be involved in terrorist activities than any Australian seafarer.

I would argue that, if the government is really serious about security in our ports and security on our coastlines, it needs to require the same level of commitment and the same level of security clearance from overseas seafarers as it requires from Australian seafarers. I would also argue that, if the government is serious about security, it should invest in the Australian shipping industry and it should move away from destroying the Australian shipping industry through the issuing of CVPs and SVPs. Whilst ships travelling around the coastline of Australia are travelling around under those permits, we cannot ensure the safety of our coastlines. (Time expired)

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am extraordinarily surprised at the amendment that the Labor Party has moved to the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007. I enjoy listening to the member for Batman when he makes his contributions—and earlier today he made an excellent contribution in relation to airport security—but his contribution on this bill was, I thought, way off track. I thought it was ideologically driven and not driven by practice and good sense.

The Australian Labor Party has been very concerned about what is happening to the unions in the shipping industry. But, from my perspective, all I see is significant improvements in efficiency, significant improvements across the wharves and good things for Australia. The problem is that you cannot live in the past. The world continues to change and we continue to see the need to make further efficiencies. But, at the same time as making further efficiencies, both employer and employee can get a good outcome—you can get a win-win situation. That is what has happened on Australia’s waterfront and that is what is happening to maritime shipping.

The opposition’s second reading amendment talks about ‘careless and widespread use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels’, ‘permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes’ and ‘failing to ensure ships provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival’. I do not see any merit in this amendment whatsoever. This bill—which, of course, is a migration amendment bill—produces statutory reforms that are needed to strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders. The people of Australia want that. These statutory reforms are needed to strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Byrne interjecting

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you sure?

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. So we have an agreement?

008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MPMr Byrne—Yes.

I understand that we have come to some arrangement and agreement with the opposition, and I would like to indicate that I certainly will be supporting this bill when it moves to a vote in the House of Representatives later this evening.

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are working through this, and I thank the government member for that contribution. We are conducting this debate on the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 and the measures that have been put forward by the government—which are supported with an amendment moved by the opposition—under the framework of September 11, Bali and the changed security environment. It is clear that the changed security environment poses significant risks for Australia.

As I understand it, the bill effectively indicates that, currently, non-military maritime crew and their families are not required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia and that special purpose visas are currently granted by operation of law. This process does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crews of these ships are allowed to enter Australia. This is an issue that federal Labor has been prosecuting, as I understand it, for some period of time.

The bill that we are debating before the House creates a new class of temporary visa—the maritime crew visa. The application process for the new visa will enable crews to be appropriately security cleared before they enter Australia. Whilst we support the bill, federal Labor believes that, in the interests of improving it, some issues need to be addressed. These issues include permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes and the failure to ensure that ships provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before their arrival. The last issue is quite important.

Why is it quite important? I will tell you why. The November 2001 paper released by the government on maritime security says:

The Australian government began working closely with the international community and the International Maritime Organisation to contribute to the development and implementation of the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, which came into effect globally on 1 July 2004.

Here is the interesting bit:

As Australia has just over 12 per cent of the world shipping task and with the value of Australia’s seaborne trade being about $188 billion per annum, any disruption and destabilisation of seaborne trade would have serious economic consequences.

In the government’s own words, that provides a very interesting framework and indicates that the government would be working very rapidly to address the concerns that have been raised in a spirit of cooperation by the federal Labor Party. However, these concerns have not been dealt with. We have detailed some of the effects of this legislation, but there are still a number of concerns relevant to our national security which have not been addressed. For example, Labor have warned of the massive security danger posed by explosives like ammonium nitrate being carried by foreign crewed, foreign flagged vessels around our coastline. We cannot have a debate of this nature without looking at these issues; they are an essential part of the debate.

In evidence given to a 2005 Senate committee that was looking into this issue, some startling admissions were made by the government’s own representatives. In answer, for example, to questions about the issuing of permits to flag of convenience vessels to ply their trade around the Australian coast, DOTARS—the Department of Transport and Regional Services—advised the Senate that, when a ship indicates its intention to come to an Australian port, there is not an additional check looking at particular seafarers when they consider the approval of a single voyage permit or a coastal permit because, in effect, that has already been done when the ship came to Australia. Let me restate an important part of the evidence DOTARS gave. They said that there was not an additional check looking at particular seafarers when they consider the approval of a single voyage permit—that is, the department does not care about the security background of the crews of foreign ships. Most of them come from flag of convenience nations where there is little or no regulation governing either the quality of the ship or the seafarers—no check is done.

Let us look at what al-Qaeda is attempting to do in terms of creating massive disruption to nations, to the economic infrastructure of nations and to the psyche of nations. It is believed that al-Qaeda controls nearly 80 front companies in 50 countries and a large number of ships which can be used to conduct attacks. Al-Qaeda has a proven track record on this. A report on one of the more famous maritime incidents, which occurred on 12 October 2000, describes how a small boat rammed the port side of the USS Cole in Aden and how the target was a symbol of US power and influence. The USS Cole was easily attacked by unsophisticated means. The method of delivery was crude and had devastating consequences. Al-Qaeda is looking at this method of attack to cause damage to our national security. When we look at the methods of attack being used by al-Qaeda and associated organisations, what concerns us on this side of the House is that the suggestions that we have put forward in the national interest are not being taken into account.

Coming back to DOTARS and the issuing of permits, the department said that they did not think it was part of their job to check the crews of foreign vessels before handing out a permit. As the member for Brisbane has pointed out previously in the House, the government’s approach to handing out permits to foreign flagged ships, particularly flag of convenience vessels, is like handing out tickets for a Friday night chook raffle—and there is evidence to prove it. The department told the Senate that they did not think checking the background of foreign seafarers was something they needed to bother about.

Most countries of the world think it is something that they should bother about. Most countries in the world understand that there is a real and growing threat from ships being used for terrorist and illegal activities. We can see this when we look at what happened to the USS Cole. One of the defence and international security magazines describes an event at a southern Italian port that shook the very foundation for the rapid growth of world trade over the past 50 years. It said:

An Al-Qaeda terrorist was found inside a comfortably equipped freight container, carrying plans of airports and an aviation mechanic’s identity and security passes. Container technology that has transformed … trade in legitimate goods can easily be used for the illicit transport of people and material.

This mechanism, albeit a crude one, is being contemplated and used to affect our national security.

For the benefit of the House, I want to recap some of the points that have been made about dealing with the threat that this form of terrorism presents. At the moment, as I said, the government happily allows foreign crewed vessels to carry thousands of tonnes of ammonium nitrate around our shores and does not know whether members of these crews are criminals or terrorists because of a lack of proper security checks being done on them.

I find that inconceivable. I am Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which examines the security threat to Australia. Looking at it from that perspective and given that this is such an obvious issue that should be addressed and has not been, you question the integrity of the government on national security. They talk the talk—the second reading speech was a very interesting discussion about what they are doing to improve maritime security. But we point out to this House and to the Australian people that there are significant gaps in Australian security as a consequence of these measures not being adopted. You cannot allow a very large vessel filled with ammonium nitrate with an indeterminate crew to enter a port and have nothing done about it.

We know that the rules are not the same for Australian ships and crews. As members of this House will know, Australian seafarers are obliged to undergo quite intrusive security checks. Federal Police and ASIO checks are done on all Australian seafarers. The members of the MUA, the people who work on our waterfronts and our ships, undergo security checks that we in this parliament do not even put ourselves through and that most of our staff do not have to go through—although some ministerial staff might have to. The simple fact is that Australian seafarers must have a maritime security identity card, which they get only after the Federal Police and ASIO have vetted them and found them suitable. But this is not the case for foreign crews. I cannot accept an argument that we should not be undertaking measures to improve our security such as scrutinising the people who come onto our shores. Foreign crews can turn up on ships that we know very little about because they are flag of convenience vessels. The government takes little interest in their background—not so in the United States, I can tell you—and allows them to carry dangerous and explosive chemicals into our major cities and ports.

People think that it may not happen. But the fact is, as I said earlier in my speech, that it is being actively contemplated by terrorist organisations. They want to take the soft route, the soft option, the option that has not been thought of, the option that causes maximum disruption with crude weaponry. Ammonium nitrate is a classic weapon of choice for terrorists. We have seen the carnage that it can cause. There are a number of examples of where the threat of ammonium nitrate has been real. In 2005, the Pancaldo carried 3,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate around the Australian coastline. Something like that could cause a disaster. Imagine that pulling into Melbourne port, for example, and exploding. It would be a disaster, a catastrophe for Melbourne—or for Sydney if it pulled into Circular Quay.

To put that into some sort of perspective, I will describe a case where a large quantity of ammonium nitrate exploded. I use the term ‘large quantity’ because ammonium nitrate is the chemical of choice for terrorists and a very small amount of ammonium nitrate was used to blow up the building in Oklahoma City. The example that I will use is one that the member for Brisbane has used in the past, but we need to graphically illustrate the nature of the threat that we face from these unscrutinised and unsupervised ships by showing what one ship can do.

Just after World War II, a French vessel called the SS Grandcamp was carrying about 2,300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate. In 1947, it exploded in Texas City harbour. The ammonium nitrate had ignited. The explosion from those 2,300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate was heard 150 miles away. Just imagine a ship carrying something equivalent to 2,300 tonnes of ammonium nitrate pulling into Melbourne or Sydney and igniting. It produced a mushroom cloud that rose to the height of 2,000 feet over Texas City. Think about Sydney; think about Melbourne; think about Adelaide. The locals thought that a nuclear war has started and that a nuclear holocaust was about to occur in Texas. So great was the devastation that the anchor of this particular ship, which weighed 1½ tons, was flung two miles from the site. It was found embedded 10 feet in the ground. That is the only known example of a large quantity of ammonium nitrate exploding on a ship.

But we know that it can happen. We can connect the dots. Ammonium nitrate is the weapon of choice for terrorists. We know that they will use devices like a ship floating in a harbour to create the maximum devastation to our country. So we have a problem. Ships carrying more than that amount of ammonium nitrate operate around the Australian coastline on a regular basis. They are not Australian vessels and they are not crewed by Australians—and I would love to know what the Americans think about this. We know little or nothing about the people who crew these vessels. These vessels are from flag of convenience countries, which make an industry out of not asking questions of merchant carriers. This should be worrying because, as the member for Brisbane has stated, it is a widely accepted fact that al-Qaeda either own or have long-term leases on between 15 and 18 vessels. It does not take a lot of imagination to see a circumstance in which one of those vessels might be used as a floating bomb. I and the member for Brisbane have made a number of comments warning of that particular threat.

To sum up, this bill has the government spending an amount of money. Around 650,000 people travel to and from Australia each year, with 90 per cent of them being from crews of visiting commercial ships. This is a small step in the right direction. What we do not have is a comprehensive plan—or the comprehensive series of security measures that Labor has been calling for for some period of time—to deal with an event that would cause immense devastation to this country. While we support this bill, we ask the government to start taking seriously our concerns. If they do, we may see this country’s national security—which the government prides itself on—being improved.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak to the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007, in particular to support the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the member for Watson. Labor does regard the measures in this bill as being a step forward. However, it does not go far enough in developing that comprehensive security strategy that is necessary. We know that around 600,000 maritime crew visit Australia each year. We know also from reports that there can be some real concern as a result of a lack of proper scrutiny of who is coming here and the circumstances.

In 2005 the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published what was a very comprehensive report that raised real concern about the arrangements that were in place for Australia’s security. The report was titled Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security. It particularly raised concerns about the lack of security for foreign flagged vessels carrying ammonium nitrate around Australia’s coastline. We know that ammonium nitrate could have a devastating impact on our cities, yet we have no proper security and scrutiny of these vessels.

We know also that organisations such as Jemaah Islamiah and Abu Sayyaf have focused some of their attention on potentially engaging in a maritime terrorist attack. And of course we know, and were reminded by the Bali bombing, that indeed Australia is a target and that these organisations operate very close to our borders.

We also know that, in this region, the incidence of piracy is the highest of anywhere in the world. This raises real concerns. I think the government has failed, whilst creating this special visa class, in not developing a comprehensive security strategy. That is why the member for Watson’s amendment has been moved in this parliament. In particular the member for Watson’s amendment:

... condemns the Government for its failure to provide necessary maritime security and protect Australians, including:

(1)   its careless and widespread use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels with foreign crew who do not undergo appropriate security checks;

(2)   permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes; and

(3)   failing to ensure ships provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival”.

I have already referred to the concern with regard to foreign flagged vessels carrying dangerous goods into our city ports and around our coastlines. But it is also of concern because, as the Terrorism and Security Monitor report of July 2003 stated:

Ship security has grown into a big issue in the war against terrorism, according to the International Maritime Bureau’s Piracy Reporting Centre. Freighters carrying fuel or chemical cargoes could be hijacked and used in indiscriminate terrorist attacks on ports. During the first quarter of 2003, the number of reported cases of serious pirate attacks has increased to 103 from 87 a year ago. Vessels most commonly attacked were chemical and oil tankers, container ships and general cargo carriers.

The centre observed a disturbing change in the pattern of pirate attacks.

One of the concerns here is that the government has been quite prepared and extremely diligent in its preparedness to raise alleged security concerns with asylum seekers, but here we have a situation where it seems to be less concerned about the potential danger of real, large-scale security concerns that can be created by a failure to properly address these issues.

The issue of foreign flag of convenience ships also goes to the issue of Australian jobs. We hear a lot of rhetoric from those opposite about Australian jobs. Here we have a situation whereby maritime workers from this nation are essentially being undercut in terms of their wages and conditions if we have a laissez-faire attitude towards people working on flag of convenience vessels coming into this nation. We know that often these workers are kept in extraordinarily poor conditions and are exploited by companies and many of them are from extremely underprivileged backgrounds. The exploitation that has gone on means that they are victims themselves. So we have a bad result all around—we have Australian jobs being lost, we have Australian wages and conditions being undermined and we have an extraordinary level of exploitation.

The Maritime Union of Australia is a union that I think has a proud history in this country of standing up for the national interest. Many of those opposite are quick to dismiss the role of unions beyond just defending wages and conditions. Well, I think it is a good thing that the Maritime Union of Australia’s union colleagues who came before engaged in activity such as pointing out that it probably was not a good idea to send pig-iron to Japan prior to WWII, because it would come back to us as it did.

The concerns that the union has expressed about the effectiveness of the maritime visa has a number of aspects. One is that it is essentially $1½ million worth of window-dressing on maritime security. There are concerns about the extent of the failure to deliver a proper maritime security benefit and concerns about the online application process. Certainly, it is unfortunate that the government has not even considered looking at the IMO convention No. 185, which would require all international seafarers to have a biometric identification card. This would of course prevent qualification fraud. Australia is, of course, a signatory to the FAL convention, the 1965 Convention on Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic. This convention allows for seafarers to travel without a visa between countries which are signatories to the convention. Therefore, there is concern about some of these arrangements and whether they go far enough.

Labor welcomes the Senate inquiry opportunity that will arise from this bill. It will be an opportunity for people in the industry to express concerns. We think that the maritime visa is a step in the right direction, but we would urge the government to adopt a much more comprehensive strategy.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contributions to the debate on the second reading of the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007, although I note that many of those contributions have been about matters outside the scope of the bill rather than about the substance of the bill itself. This bill creates the legal framework for a new temporary visa, to be known as the maritime crew visa. It will provide the crew of non-military ships with the legal authority to travel to Australia, enter by sea and remain in Australia in connection with work on their ships. The new visa arrangements will replace the special purpose visas that are currently granted by operation of law to the crew of non-military ships. Significantly, the application process for the new visa will enable crew members to be appropriately security cleared before a visa is granted.

It should be noted that the measures in this bill are not designed to single out maritime crew for more onerous security checking compared to other people. Rather, these measures are about placing the crew of non-military ships on the same footing as other visa applicants, all of whom have to satisfy certain security and character requirements before a visa can be granted. As with most other visas, the detail governing the new maritime crew visa will be set out in the migration regulations. Care will be taken to ensure that this regulatory framework accommodates as far as possible the needs of industry. For example, it is anticipated the new visa will be able to be applied for online, and there will be no charge for the visa. Shipping agents will also be able to apply for the visa on behalf of crew members.

There were a couple of suggestions made in the debate by honourable members opposite—for example, that there are currently no security arrangements for the crew of non-military maritime ships. Indeed, under the current special purpose visa regime, crew biodata are made available at the time a ship is about to arrive in Australia. The requirements vary depending on the length of the ship’s journey, from 12 hours before arriving to 96 hours before arriving. At this time, crew names are checked against the movement alert list before entry. So there is checking currently, but these new measures are more adequate than those that exist at the present time.

It has also been suggested that it has taken a long time to introduce this amendment. There have been no difficulties previously encountered when dealing with the maritime industry in Australia, but as a matter of prudence and to bring the maritime crew industry into line with Australia’s universal visa system it was considered appropriate to introduce a visa for maritime crew which involved a formal application process for foreign crew of non-military ships seeking to enter Australia. On that note, I find it interesting that the criticism of a delay in relation to this matter is accompanied by the decision of the opposition to seek to refer this to a Senate committee and therefore delay further a matter which generally they support.

In summary, the measures in this bill will help strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders while being responsive to the needs of maritime crew and the shipping industry as a whole. I commend the bill to the House.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal 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 Watson 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.