Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are debating this bill about consolidating maritime powers at a time when the front-line men and women of Australian Customs and Border Protection Command and their naval colleagues are operating at absolute breaking point. Both the personnel and the boats in which they operate, because of the government's failure to secure our borders, are operating beyond reasonable demands. I would hope that the House would bear in mind our responsibilities to these men and women in particular and make sure that this bill does not create any further hardships for them. I want to go to an issue that may be within this bill later on in my speech.

What we do know is that we had a system of robust border protection instituted well over a decade ago by the previous government. That system has been completely degraded since the government changed in 2007 and the consequences for the men and women who protect our borders have been enormous. They have been forced to operate at a completely unsustainable operational tempo. If you go and speak to those officers, their frustration about the circumstances in which they have been placed by this government is obvious for everyone to see.

We are debating this bill at a time when the climate for people smugglers has been far too friendly. Clearly this is an issue that the parliament has been debating. We debated it last week and the government took a step in the right direction by finally relenting in its opposition to offshore processing on Manus and Nauru. But our great concern in the opposition—and we would like to see these measures work but we are concerned that they will not—is that the measure that was taken last week just does not go far enough.

It only adopts one plank of the three planks of the opposition's policy, which we believe very firmly needs to be implemented if we are going to bring the curtain down on a very shameful period in Australia's border protection policy. Over 22½ thousand people have arrived illegally with all the enormous consequences for us as a nation that flow on from that fact.

Events occurred last week—that is, the use of two merchant vessels to pick up asylum seekers who had made a distress call—and the issues that arose as a result of these events need to be aired in this debate. The distress call was taken by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, and merchant vessels went to the aid of those people. In the case of the MV Parsifal, what happened then is deeply disturbing. This merchant ship rescued a boatload of asylum seekers; apparently they were 44 nautical miles from Indonesia. The minister then informed the public on Sky News that after this boat went to the aid of these people—as is required under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and to the credit of the crew of the boat—the captain of the vessel, which was on its way to Singapore, fulfilled his obligations. At the request of the Australian authorities he picked up the people who had called for distress, and under any circumstances he was perfectly entitled—and should have been able—to continue to his destination once he had fulfilled his obligations to rescue people and take the people he picked up to the nearest place of safety, which is generally understood to be the nearest port. The captain, as was his right, determined that he was going to continue on his voyage to Singapore. The minister informed us on Sky News that the boatload of asylum seekers then threatened violence and became very aggressive and insisted that the boat turn around and deliver them to Christmas Island. The captain decided that the risk to his crew was too great and acquiesced to the request of those asylum seekers to come to Australia.

This is completely and utterly unacceptable. You wonder why the government was prepared to acquiesce. A merchant vessel went and fulfilled its duty to pick people up when they were in apparent distress and the people, who you would think would be grateful for being rescued by a merchant vessel, then turned on the captain and the officers of the merchant vessel and insisted they come to Australia. This situation is completely and utterly out of control. It is exactly the definition of piracy—using violence to take a ship off the course on which it is supposed to be going. It is not acceptable that potential acts of piracy go unpunished by the Australian government, and it is not acceptable that merchant vessels that go to the aid of people in distress have to fear for their own safety from the people they have picked up and who then find themselves in this apparently life-threatening situation.

The problem is that the Labor government never thinks through the consequences of its actions. This boat was well within the Indonesian search-and-rescue zone and very close to Indonesia itself, yet the government was prepared to acquiesce to the asylum seekers' desire to come to Australia. You wonder how far this policy would go. What are the territorial limits of the Australian government's acceptance of people's desire to come to Australia? What if they had been north of Indonesia? Would they have been allowed to say 'we are going to come to Australia', and the Australian government is going to do nothing about it? What if it was a vessel that had left Sri Lanka and was off the coast of India and was picked up by a passing merchant vessel and they insisted that they come to Australia? Would they be allowed to come to Australia in such circumstances? Clearly the government does not think through the sorts of decisions that it makes.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read the first part of your speech and compare it to Tampa.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are interjections from the Minister for Scullin, and I am very happy to compare it to that situation.

Mr Jenkins interjecting—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He should know better; he should know better than that.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, he should know better, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to make the comparison with the incident that the government compares this to, which of course happened when the Tampa situation occurred. The current situation is a very relevant precedent for this parliament to look at, because what has happened here follows a reverse-Tampa principle. We cannot accept a situation where—

Mr Jenkins interjecting—

Mr Randall interjecting—

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Can the member for Scullin and the member for Canning allow the member to be heard in silence? I am asking both members to allow the member for Stirling the right to be heard.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that those interjections are just a great example of the sort of hypocrisy we see from the Labor Party on this issue. They have to think through the consequences of what happened last week. A merchant vessel goes the aid of people in distress. The merchant vessel determines that it is going to continue a journey to Singapore. Yet, because of the threats and intimidation that the minister announced on Sky News last week, the vessel was diverted from its course. What are the consequences? Clearly it is going to be a consideration for merchant vessels when they are asked to go to pick up people who have made a distress call and said that their safety is in peril. If merchant vessels are going to be diverted from their course and then pick people up and be hijacked in this way, my concern is that when vessels receive a distress signal they are going to think twice about their response. It also could lead to a situation where merchant vessels avoid this area between Indonesia and Australia. There were two incidents last week where merchant vessels were diverted to pick up people who were apparently in distress, and what happened last week could lead to a situation where merchant vessels start to avoid the area between Indonesian and Australia. Clearly that is not a good outcome for Australia and is not a good outcome for people who might find themselves in distress when taking the same journey.

I will go through what the obligations of a merchant vessel are in such circumstances, because I think it is important that the parliament understand them. The report of the government's own expert panel, which was released last Monday, dealt with this. The panel noted that the safety of life at sea convention says:

On receiving information that persons are in distress at sea, the master of a ship, which is in a position to provide assistance, must proceed with all speed to their assistance.

This obligation applies regardless of the nationality or status of such persons or the circumstances in which they are found.

Where assistance has been provided to persons in distress in a state’s [search-and-rescue zone]—

All of these rescues have, of course, occurred within the Indonesian search-and-rescue zone—

that state has primary responsibility to ensure that coordination and cooperation occurs between governments, so that survivors are disembarked from the assisting ship and delivered to a place of safety.

As a matter of practice ‘a place of safety’ could be the nearest convenient port. This will not necessarily be a port in the territory of the state in whose [search-and-rescue zone] an incident occurs, nor in the territory of the state of the vessel rendering assistance.

The captain of the MV Parsifal responded to the broadcast issued by the Australian authorities and he appropriately followed all of his obligations under the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. He is allowed to continue on his journey once he has fulfilled those obligations. The captain determined that the nearest convenient port was Singapore, yet, as I outlined, he was not allowed to continue on that journey, under threats of violence and intimidation from the people he had rescued.

This incident does need to be investigated by the Australian government. Sadly, when the minister announced this on Sky News, apparently the government had taken no steps to investigate these circumstances. They had just acquiesced to the fact that this ship had been diverted from its course because of these threats of intimidation. They need to do much better than that. I understand that, belatedly, they are investigating the circumstances that this vessel found itself in.

The government also need to work out what their policy is. What are the territorial limits of this policy? Is it possible for anyone who has been rescued by a merchant vessel to insist that they come to Australia regardless of where they are rescued? The government really do need to show some resolve in dealing with people smugglers and they need to put an end to a situation where other people are dictating our border protection and immigration policies.

I want to turn to some of the specific aspects of the Maritime Powers Bill, which establishes authorisations under which a maritime officer may exercise enforcement powers in relation to vessels, installations, aircraft, protected land areas and isolated persons on certain grounds. It also provides for the enforcement powers available to maritime officers, including boarding, obtaining information, searching, detaining, seizing and retaining things, and moving and detaining persons, and it creates offences for failure to comply. The bill seeks to consolidate the powers and functions that currently exist within the existing legal framework, chiefly under the Customs Act 1901, the Migration Act 1958, the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984.

The unique aspects of the maritime environment merit a tailored approach to maritime powers, helping to ensure flexibility in their exercise and to assist maritime officers to deal with quickly changing circumstances and difficult and dangerous situations. It would appear that the powers contained within the bill are primarily based on powers currently available to operational agencies. However, as with most pieces of legislation originating from this government, it does not hurt for this parliament to be additionally prudent and thorough to ensure we are not passing legislation that has been hurriedly put together and has errors or unintended consequences.

With that in mind, the bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which I understand is due to bring down its report today. The opposition will be keen to scrutinise what it has to say, particularly in relation to an issue I would like to raise in a minute. The Australian Crime Commission made a submission to that committee, and I think it is worth while to look at what they say:

Australia's long and vulnerable coastline provides opportunity for illicit goods to be trafficked into and out of the country via small vessels and light aircraft. As such, the aviation and maritime sectors are highly desirable environments for serious and organised criminal infiltration and exploitation.

Despite clear evidence that our maritime and aviation sectors are being exploited by organised crime, this Labor government continues to slash and burn the budget of Customs and Border Protection. It has savaged the budget of the Australian Crime Commission and it has attacked the budget of the Australian Federal Police.

Recently, in their submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the gathering and use of criminal intelligence, the Crime Commission highlighted the damage Labor's budget cuts have done to their ability to fight crime. Since Labor took office they have slashed $22.2 million in funding and have cut 144 staff from the Australian Crime Commission, clearly hindering their ability to do their job effectively. This point was highlighted by the agency in their submission to the inquiry:

The ACC has, for a number of successive years, been subject to very significant cost reduction strategies, particularly in the context of the agency’s supplier budget. These reductions adversely affect the ACC’s ability to respond to serious and organised crime.

These kinds of cuts also have a very negative effect on the ability of our premier law enforcement agencies to do the job that we expect of them. In particular, the ACC needs to look at organised crime. When you attack their budget and personnel, you are clearly providing opportunities for organised crime to flourish. When the minister talks about his determination to do something about crime in Australia, unfortunately his words are completely and utterly empty, because since this government has come into office it has given every encouragement to criminals to pursue their evil deeds. Sadly, the cuts that I outlined to the ACC have been particularly bad, but they are not the only crime-fighting agency that has been affected by savage Labor cuts. The ACC made this point to the inquiry:

Organised crime groups primarily exploit vulnerabilities in the maritime sector for the purposes of organised theft, the avoidance of duty on illicit goods, and as the primary gateway into Australia for illicit drug importation.

The ACC have highlighted the damaging effect of Labor's cuts; they have also highlighted the sorts of vulnerabilities that criminals, particularly organised criminals, seek to exploit.

The agency that we expect will deal with criminal infiltration on our borders is Customs and Border Protection and, sadly, it is an agency that again has been savaged by the Labor Party since they came to office. Initially the Labor Party ripped $51.8 million out of its budget to inspect cargo when it comes into Australia. When the government changed in 2007, 60 per cent of air consignments coming into the country were inspected. The number of consignments is now 75 per cent down, in terms of inspection, on what it was in those times. Sea cargo inspections are down 25 per cent because of these savage cuts. This is occurring at a time when the volume of cargo coming into Australia is increasing. What we also know from inquiries that this parliament has conducted is that airports and ports are very vulnerable to criminal exploitation. There is lots of evidence that organised criminals are exploiting the difficulties that Customs and Border Protection are having because of the Labor Party's savage cuts. We will reverse those cuts. We do not think it is a good idea when organised criminals are clearly infiltrating our ports and our airports—and when parliamentary committees and law enforcement agencies have acknowledged that—and in fact it is a stupid thing to cut funding to the agency that is responsible for policing our ports and airports. We will reverse those cuts when we come into office, if we get the chance to govern again.

Earlier in my speech I highlighted that I wanted to raise a particular issue on which we have concerns with this bill and I hope it is one that the Senate committee has had a long look at in its report. It has come to our attention that there is a potential issue in the bill that may cause problems with the interception of illegal boat arrivals, including those not in our waters. This may have implications for maritime authorities fulfilling their obligations under the international Law of the Sea. The bill's explanatory memorandum gives details of this obligation, and I believe it is worth quoting in full.

Australia has implied non-refoulement obligations under Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and under the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

This comprises the obligation not to remove a person to a country where there is a real risk that the person would face the death penalty, arbitrary deprivation of life, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Such a risk must be a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the person's removal.

Proposed section 72 of the Bill may engage Australia's non-refoulement obligations. Section 72(4) of the Bill provides that a maritime officer may detain a person and take the person, or cause the person to be taken to a place in or outside the migration zone, including a place outside Australia.

The EM then goes on to say:

In circumstances where the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and or the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant apply, obligations of non-refoulement may be engaged and a person may be eligible to apply for a protection visa under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth ).

In such circumstances, in order to ensure that a maritime officer who has detained a person aboard a vessel acts in accordance with Australia's non-refoulement obligations, procedures relating to the consideration of refoulement risks would need to be in place.

We in the opposition are concerned that this section of the bill could potentially place a considerable burden on our maritime officers who are already finding the circumstances in which they operate incredibly challenging, and I hope that it has been thoroughly investigated by the Senate committee before it hands down its report. We will look very closely at what they have to say about it. Given what I have outlined earlier in my speech about events last week in relation to merchant vessels picking up people who have made distress calls, it is vitally important that this section is clarified to ensure our border protection officers are able to do their tasks effectively and without concern that they are being legally hampered by sections of this bill.

We in the opposition will always side with our maritime officers and the very difficult job they are tasked to do in protecting our borders. They are operating at a tempo that has never occurred in our country's history. They are operating on vessels that are not keeping up with the pace they are required to operate at. We have had reports of vessels going out to sea when they should not—they are required to do that through the sheer volume of illegal arrivals unleashed by Labor's border protection failures. The officers on these boats perform arduous tasks at sea and they are being asked to perform duties that are generally outside their normal remit and are being pushed to breaking point by these failed policies. We strongly support the work that they do and we believe this parliament should do everything we can to help them. We certainly should not be doing anything extra to hinder them. I am concerned that there may be parts of this bill that do do that.

The government needs to take a strong stance backing up our maritime officers, particularly if they are going to face circumstances where they are threatened at sea or intimidated at sea. Clearly as we take on people smugglers—and they are vicious criminals who care nothing about the human cargo they transport—it is completely naive for us to think that they are simply going to give up and go home without testing the resolve of the Australian government. We need to ensure that there is a legal framework that protects our officers who will be called upon to deal with those consequences, because they do deal with very difficult situations. The opposition will always back up their right to do their work in the most effective and safest way that they can. Pending the report of the Senate committee, the opposition is not going to oppose passage of this bill through the parliament, but we will be very interested in what the Senate committee reports.

We will certainly ensure that there is nothing within this bill that is going to hinder the work of the very brave men and women who are protecting our borders. Although we will not oppose this bill, we will not agree to its passage through the parliament until those issues have been fully investigated by the committee.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In contrast to the previous speaker, I am going to speak on the bills. I assume that as he did not have much to say about the Maritime Powers Bill 2012 or the Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012, apart from a bit on section 72, he essentially supports the rest of the legislation. Given the propensity of the opposition to find criticism anywhere they can, I assume that if they had problems with the bills they would have said so. I am going to spend a little bit of time actually talking about the legislation itself, because it is very important legislation

The Maritime Powers Bill 2012 consolidates and harmonises the Commonwealth's existing maritime enforcement regime, which is presently spread across numerous pieces of legislation. In fact, it is spread across 35 pieces of legislation. So when the member for Stirling talks about providing certainty for our officers in the carrying out of their duty, amalgamating all those different places they have to go—35 different places—into one piece of legislation is incredibly important. The bill provides a single framework for use by our on-water enforcement agencies, such as Customs and the Navy, and will be used to enforce a diverse range of Australia's maritime laws, including in relation to fishing, customs, migration, environment and quarantine, as well as international agreements and decisions in particular circumstances. It will provide clarity for on-water enforcement agencies in relation to the powers that they are acting under and the procedures that they are to follow. The Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 is really a technical bill. It just repeals the duplicate provisions in other acts.

This is an important piece of legislation that consolidates and harmonises the existing maritime enforcement regime. It provides a single framework, as I said, and will apply to a range of Australia's maritime laws, including illegal fishing, customs and migration.

I will respond in part to some of the things that the member for Stirling said, in particular his use of the word 'illegal' when referring to boat arrivals. There will be many people in the community and, I note, some journalists in the last few days who have been pulling up members of the opposition for using the word illegal when talking about boat arrivals. The member for Stirling said there had been some 20,000 illegal arrivals. They are of course not illegal; both sides use the word irregular from time to time, but the arrivals are not illegal. The main concern I have with the word illegal being used is that it gives an impression of some sort of incredibly bad behaviour by a person who seeks to come here by boat. I would like to put on the record that there are many people in our community, and I am one of them, who understand the position they face—having crossed the border into Pakistan along with 1.8 million refugees and thinking they would be there with their family for decades—when offered an opportunity to get on a boat. I might, like many people in this House, I think, find myself saying yes to that opportunity.

These people are not doing something that is wrong. They have fled persecution. They are doing the best they can for their family and are trying to find a path to safety in whatever way they can. The issue for me is not whether they are doing the right thing or not. Thank heavens, most of us have never been in those circumstances, and we have to respect people for doing what they can for their families. The issue for me is that when 20,000 people try to get to Australia by boat a large number of them drown—an estimated one in 20 will drown on the way. Whether people are drowning while trying to get to Australia or, as they do on their way to Europe, suffocating in the bottom of containers or crossing snowy mountains through Asia—whatever the reason for their deaths on the way—we as a nation have an obligation to try to find a way to stop those deaths. So my concern with the boat arrivals is not with the behaviour of the people concerned. As I said, I might just be one of them myself if I were in those circumstances, and I am sure that some of the members opposite would be as well. I know people in Australia who have come by boat and who have made the most fabulous citizens and who have worked incredibly hard. Again, we need to be very careful about placing value judgments on the behaviour of people who are doing the best they can under appalling circumstances. It is good to see the opposition accept a level of compromise in the last week when it supported the amendments that went through the House. We on this side offered to reopen Nauru and Manus Island quite some time ago, but it is good to see the opposition willing to compromise, at least a little bit, in its recent support of that proposal.

I also want to talk about the comments the member for Stirling made about the behaviour, as he put it, of asylum seekers on the ocean. The report of the expert panel made it really clear that circumstances have changed substantially since towbacks were last used. I think the member for Stirling came into the parliament at the same time as I did, in 2004, so he was not a member of parliament during the mass arrivals at the turn of the decade, but he has certainly been in parliament long enough to hear much of the debate. The circumstances have changed in the last decade since the limited number of turnbacks happened over a decade ago. I think there were only about seven: the first couple worked and then the people on the boats worked out very quickly that they could scuttle the boat. Even a decade ago, the use of that policy lasted a few days at best before people started to risk their lives and those of our Navy personnel in desperate attempts to get to Australia. The legal context also has changed. The attitudes of many regional governments have evolved, raising the potential cost in terms of bilateral cooperation generally and coordination on people-smuggling activities in particular. The pre-emptive tactics of people smugglers have adapted quite substantially.

Irregular vessels—not 'illegal' vessels—carrying asylum seekers can often be quickly disabled or rendered unsafe to foil any attempted turnbacks and to create a safety-of-life-at-sea situation. This introduces potential dangers for asylum seekers—and we have seen some of the dreadful outcomes—and for Australian personnel, and the effect in the turnbacks is significantly diminished.

The expert panel was also of the strong view that there are a range of conditions that need to be fulfilled for the safe and lawful turnback of boats carrying asylum seekers, and they were quite clear on this. They do not believe that those conditions currently exist at all. They made it perfectly clear that towbacks could not be attempted without the agreement of Indonesia, and that agreement does not exist. The report finds that the conditions required for effective, lawful and safe turnbacks of irregular vessels heading for Australia with asylum seekers on board are not currently met in regard to Indonesia.

A number of people have made comments on this. The Indonesian foreign minister said on 15 March 2012:

From that kind of mindset, and naturally, it would be impossible and not advisable even to simply shift the nature of the challenge from one end of the continuum to the other.

He also said:

… simply pushing boats back to where they came from would be a backward step.

And:

The general concept of pushing boats back and forth would be an aberration to the general consensus that has been established since 2003.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said in February 2012:

We have clearly opposed pushbacks in the Italian case in the Mediterranean in the recent past before the Libyan crisis, and we think that that is clearly a violation in relation to the '51 Convention.

Remember too that, whether or not one believes that one can do it in relation to the country one is pushing the boats back to, we had the situation even a decade ago with the turning back of half a dozen boats where the people involved in smuggling had already worked out that scuttling a boat and putting the lives of asylum seekers and Australia's Navy at risk was the way to go. We knew we would no doubt see more of that. The member for Stirling has already talked about attempts in recent weeks to scuttle boats—or, at least, suspected attempts to scuttle boats. That is clearly now part of the arsenal of people smugglers.

This issue unfortunately still remains mired in a lot of political rhetoric. We have heard a little bit of it again today. That is a great shame. It really is a great shame. I think people will look back at the decade since the Tampa and the level of rhetoric around some very desperate people with some shame. I hope the time when we look back on this decade with shame comes very quickly. It is certainly time for the rhetoric to stop.

We have an incredibly important refugee program. We currently take around 14,000 people. We are one of the few countries in the world that take people from camps. Only the United States and Canada currently take more than we do from third countries. After us, most of the other nine or so countries that do take people from camps from third countries take anywhere between a few hundred and about 1,200. So the big chance for resettlement from a third country if you are in a camp is in the US, Canada and Australia.

Every time a person arrives by boat, a person who might get to Australia through another path does not. I know there are some, I guess because a person on a boat asks us for help in a different way, who prioritise that request for help over other forms of request for help. I do not. I believe the bottom line is that the role for Australia is to take as many refugees as we can, as effectively as we can and I believe the way for us to do that is to do it through the UNHCR process, through regional processing frameworks and from third countries. I suspect that those on the other side also agree with that.

I suspect that we also have common ground in that we, over time, would like to see the number of asylum seekers that we accept increased. There may be a debate about what the time frame might be. We on this side are accepting the recommendations of the expert panel that we go to 20,000 straight away and 27,000 within five years. But, again, whether we have agreement on when, I have no doubt that there are many on the other side of this House who believe that a refugee program is incredibly important and that we as a fairly wealthy and generous nation relative to so many of our neighbours could play a much, much stronger role in working with the UNHCR to take a greater number from third countries. So we do actually have quite a considerable area of common ground.

This is an intractable problem. The world refugee problem has no answer; it certainly does not have an answer that Australia can come up with today. If we took 49.5 million asylum seekers today, there would still be a hell of a lot waiting for safety. So it is not a problem we can solve. We can only play our part. I would urge the member for Stirling in future and the speakers after him—because I suspect that neither of the two speakers that follow are actually going to talk much about the bill—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, I have been told! If I am judging you incorrectly, I apologise. But I would urge people on both sides of this House to enter into a very constructive debate about what is an intractable problem, to cease even by inference making any allegations of improper behaviour against people who are doing the best they can to find safety for their families and to look at Australia's role in a larger context and find a way through for us to play the role that we can in providing a safe haven for people from third countries, working with our neighbours to improve the safety of those that are in transit countries. Again, I know we agree on this. I would hope that our rhetoric can settle somewhat and we can have a much more constructive debate.

I will just return very quickly to the bill, which I did speak on initially, so I have actually done better than the previous speaker. Thirty-five pieces of legislation covering the activities of our law enforcement officers on the sea is a little bit silly, to say the least. This bill has been a long time coming. There has been extensive consultation. I commend it to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Maritime Powers Bill and Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill. The purpose of these bills is to set out a common framework to consolidate the powers of our Commonwealth maritime enforcement agencies and their staff. There are a number of key agencies who work in this space and their operational parameters have historically been set out across a range of different bills that govern and determine their specific powers and responsibilities. These different powers are contained in over 35 separate Commonwealth acts, including four key pieces of legislation: the Migration Act, the Customs Act, the Fisheries Management Act and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act.

The government has said the purpose of these bills before the House today is to attempt to consolidate those powers and draw them all together into one document, one single maritime enforcement law. Yet the rhetoric in these bills about best supporting our front-line officers is, I believe, fundamentally undermined by Labor's actions in recent times, and over the last four years in particular, which speak far louder than the words that are written in these bills. In particular I will note and return to the government's failure just in the course of the past week in how they dealt with the MV Parsifal, which my colleague made reference to. Also, we have a situation where the government is effectively not protecting our borders or enforcing our legal rights on our borders. Instead, it has been operating a water taxi service for some time.

The coalition has demonstrated its conviction and belief in secure border protection policies that this government can only hint at. This is a government that lacks the will to deal with this issue, despite the bills before us today and even despite the bills before us last week. The simple fact is they were dragged kicking and screaming to the measures they agreed to last week. If they do not believe in these matters, and over a decade they said they did not, then I do not think Australians can have a high level of trust in their ability to act on these matters in the future.

In principle, I have serious concerns about unnecessarily rewriting legislation that appears on the face of it to be working. I am also very aware of the dangers of inadvertently creating fresh loopholes that would potentially prevent or inhibit our agencies in their ability to protect Australia's border security. I understand that as part of the process of drafting this legislation Customs, the Department of Defence and the Australian Crime Commission have each been consulted. I understand also that the Acting Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Jones, said on behalf of the Department of Defence and noted in his submission to the committee:

The Department strongly supports the above Bills which will simplify on water maritime enforcement operations and streamline training and doctrine development within Defence (Navy).

In our view there will also be less likelihood of a misapplication of power with more coherent and comprehensive legislation. In addition, any future amendments will be far less complex as there will be only one Department responsible for the legislation.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority stated:

We are satisfied that the proposed changes are not going to cause operational disruption nor curtail the Authority's powers or ability to perform, in cooperation with other agencies …

I note, however, that within my own shadow portfolio the department of immigration has not yet made a submission to this process. I am puzzled as to why, given their responsibilities under the Migration Act and the significant implications of this bill for matters that relate to them. I would hope that we get some comment or some input from them on these issues.

The Australian Crime Commission said in their submission that they will 'continue to have access to maritime powers as outlined in the powers bill' and that there was no change to the Australian Crime Commission's access to these powers. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service stated:

As Australia's primary civil maritime law enforcement agency, Customs and Border Protection has been heavily involved in the development of both these Bills.

I hope they are right. It is for the government to guarantee that they are right and that these bills will not create unintended consequences that restrict the options available to our sovereign government to protect our borders—in particular to deter illegal entry—or otherwise impede the ability of our agencies to do their job, whether it be managing and responding to the threat of people smuggling or illegal movements of people or goods across our borders.

I make specific reference to the phrase 'illegal entry', because there still seems to be some confusion about what this means. I will refer to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime and the Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. Article 3 states the following:

(a)   "Smuggling of migrants" shall mean the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry—

the UN's word—

of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident;

(b)   "Illegal entry" shall mean crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State …

Article 31 of the Refugee convention also makes specific reference to 'illegal entry', the UN's term to describe the nature of a person's arrival in a country, regardless of whether they at some time might make an asylum claim or indeed prove to be a refugee.

It is not illegal to make a claim for asylum. The coalition has never said that. That is not in dispute. It never has been. But, if you cross our borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving state, that is an illegal entry and we will refer to it as such. We will not be intimidated by those who would seek to have us do otherwise. Your claim does not change the nature of your arrival. People arrive in this country legally and illegally. In the former case we have a greater capacity to control and decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come. This remains our policy. This is coalition policy—always has been. We believe in it and we can be trusted to act on it, unlike those who sit opposite.

The bill sets out a system of authorisations under which a maritime officer can exercise enforcement powers in relation to vessels, aircraft, installations, protected land areas and persons. The government has said these bills are not proposing new powers. Rather, the powers contained in the bills are based predominantly on powers that are currently available to and exercised by the agencies that operate in these areas. The bill does not seem on the face of it to propose changes to operational roles or responsibilities, nor does it appear to be reprioritising or reallocating funding.

Where existing powers overlap, these bills are said to remove duplication. However, we are talking about consolidating a very diverse range of laws, and further scrutiny is essential to ensure there are no unintended consequences arising from this attempt at simplification.

The legislation has been referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and is also before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, who are due to hand down their report later this month. The coalition are not opposing these bills at present; however, we await the Senate committee report with great interest in the clarification and further details that this, hopefully, will provide.

Of particular concern to me is the language surrounding the burden of responsibility for maritime officials working in situations where Australia's non-refoulement obligations may come into play, which was referred to by my colleague. Of particular concern to me is that these obligations are outlined in the Maritime Powers Bill explanatory memorandum. It states in relation to proposed section 72(4):

… that a maritime officer may detain a person and take the person, or cause the person to be taken to a place in or outside the migration zone, including a place outside Australia.

The explanatory memorandum goes on to say that in relation to circumstances where these obligations may be triggered:

… in order to ensure that a maritime officer who has detained a person aboard a vessel acts in accordance with Australia's non-refoulement obligations, procedures relating to the consideration of refoulement risks would need to be in place.

It is important we have a clear understanding of what these obligations presently are and that in this bill we are not seeking to add to these obligations, particularly on the high seas or in our contiguous zone.

The Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea, published by the International Maritime Organization, which also bears the logo of the UNHCR, following amendments to the SOLAS and SAR conventions, are explicit in stating:

should not—

of survivors from the assisting ships. The government needs to ensure this bill does not create more difficulties or seek to add or further condition the action of maritime officers as they try to do their jobs, including the interception of illegal boats both inside and out of Australia's territorial waters.

In addition, the Houston report found that turning boats back—because this is what it predominantly relates to—'can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive'. I note that page 126 of that report states:

The following principles for implementing turnbacks are based on international and domestic legal considerations, as well as diplomatic and operational considerations:

One thing those opposite fail to acknowledge is that the report notes that this consent may be provided by acquiescence. 'Acquiescence' is a very specific term which those opposite would be familiar with, and the drafters of the Houston report were very careful to make sure they put that term in there. This is exactly as occurred when the policies of turning back boats were implemented on the last occasion by the Howard government. It also does not make reference to the situation where an Indonesian flagged vessel re-enters or enters Indonesian waters under its own steam carrying passengers returning to Indonesia or situations of search and rescue where a boat is in distress.

The second condition was:

These provisions, I note, are set out in article 8, paragraph 2 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. This does not address the situation of a flagless vessel, though—which is how the majority of cases first present at sea—and provide legal basis for interception. Paragraph 7 of that same protocol states:

A State Party that has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel is engaged in the smuggling of migrants by sea and is without nationality or may be assimilated to a vessel without nationality may board and search the vessel. If evidence confirming the suspicion is found, that State Party shall take appropriate measures in accordance with relevant domestic and international law.

Thirdly, the Houston report states:

There is certainly no clear legal obligation arising from Australia's signatory status to the refugee convention under article 33 which would prevent them doing this in extraterritorial waters. The US Supreme Court held in Sale v Haitian Centers Council that the US Coast Guard's high seas interception and return of Haitian asylum seekers did not contravene article 33. This argument is strengthened by the position that nonrefoulement has increasingly become an established principle of customary international law. In addition, Indonesia are a signatory to numerous other conventions that also deal with nonrefoulement, including the convention against torture. They are also signatories to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The fourth criterion set out by the Houston panel is:

The Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea, which I referred to earlier, state that the government responsible for the search-and-rescue region in which survivors were recovered is responsible for providing a place of safety or ensuring that such a place of safety is provided.

The safety of Defence Force personnel is managed by the chain of command, which has always been the coalition's policy. On this last point, we have the situation now where vessels in distress are being rescued by what has become a water taxi service which has every legal right to return people to the closest place of practicable safety, but it is not doing so under this government. So we have had this situation where the distress calls are now forcing a water taxi service to take asylum seekers who are forcing their claims on the Australian continent by going down that path. As my colleague mentioned prior to me, we have also had the situation now, with the Parsifal, where they are using intimidation through threats to their own safety and, potentially, later, to the crew themselves to force the hand of these vessels.

We have a clear difference in attitude here between the government and the coalition. The government has been dragged kicking and screaming to deal with these issues of enforcing our rights and our sovereignty at sea on our borders. The coalition has always believed in it. We believe we need strong laws and we also believe we need a government that is prepared to use those strong laws and use every option available to it to protect our borders. This government does not have that track record and it does not have the trust of the Australian people.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regrettably I find, as I get towards the end of my parliamentary career, that I am getting a bit thin skinned and I am easily provoked into debates. But on this occasion it is not the member for Cook who has provoked me. Whilst I disagree with much of what he said today in his 15-minute contribution, and although there were some slight digressions into emotive language—and they were slight—it is not he who has provoked me on this occasion.

The member for Stirling, in talking about the Parsifal, infuriated me, because the attitude of those opposite is in contrast to the attitude of the coalition when they were in government and were dealing with the sister ship of the Parsifal, the Tampa. Consistency about the application of international maritime law is much of what the member for Stirling talked about before, finally getting around to the legislation after 21 minutes. The honourable member for Cook, in talking about refoulement, was of course talking about the same sections of the principal bill, the Maritime Powers Bill 2012, that we are debating today. I do not mind if we are going to have debates around those issues. In fact, I am very pleased that in this case these pieces of legislation were, I think, brought in before the requirement for compatibility statements about human rights issues came in and that the parliament is discussing them. It might be that we have different conclusions about that issue, but it is appropriate that the parliament look at it.

Let's go back to the start of the slippery slope on these issues. It started 11 years ago, in August 2001, when a vessel sinking in waters that I think were under Indonesian search-and-rescue responsibility put out a distress call, and a merchant ship, the MV Tampa, went to its aid. Having taken aboard the 400-plus asylum seekers that were on board the distressed ship, the captain of the MV Tampa then decided that the most appropriate place for him to take them was the closest land point, that being Christmas Island—a decision that, clearly, he could legitimately make under his understanding of the application of international maritime law. And what happened? He was refused permission to land.

Then, with a policy written on the back of a postage stamp, Nauru was finally found as a solution. We have heard over the last couple of weeks about the brilliance of the then ministers in charge—the brilliance of them discovering Nauru as the solution to a problem that they believed they had. Yet, if you go through writings about these decisions since that time, you see people like the then foreign minister, Alexander Downer, admitting that there was no great science to the fact that they picked Nauru; it just happened to come into their heads. They decided it was an island that they could take them to—out of sight, out of mind. Yet, on this legislation, in contrast to the way in which the coalition clearly admit they made these decisions without consultation, without talking about the people that they had to put them in place, at least the member for Cook had the decency to put on the record the comments of several government agencies, from Navy through to Customs, who were all part of the way in which we put in place these pieces of legislation—agreeing that their comments had been considered and that they accepted the consolidation in this law of all the regulations and law that preceded it.

But, regrettably, the member for Cook on the substantive issues goes on to say: 'We can't be sure. Somehow the government has fiddled with it,' or something like that. Well, I am sorry; executive government is about that. It is the ministers down there in the south wing actually working with their departments. Fortunately, on the public record, it would appear that all the agencies involved in this maritime powers legislation, coming from all the different silos of government, came together. There is no evidence that this has been only one agency imposing on others. This is a whole-of-government approach. This is something that should be celebrated.

As a parliamentarian, I am happy for the Senate committee to have a look at it. I am happy for them to look at the things that have been raised by the two opposition frontbenchers in this debate. But do not use the fact that they are proposing that we look at these things as a criticism that the system has failed. That is the proper way that the parliament should look at proposals put by executive government. I am confident that they will stack up. Even if they do not stand up, if they are properly reacted to, that is appropriate, and it is not something such that we should come in here, mealy mouthed, deciding that we are going to score points on every issue.

If, indeed, people last week on the vessel Parsifal acted illegally in threatening the master of the vessel, then let this parliament allow the appropriate investigations to go on and the appropriate action to take place. But that does not change the fact that government, from time to time, has to make decisions about destinations in these circumstances, because—I keep going back to this—that is exactly what an Australian government did in the case of the Tampa. It just happens that the coalition, now in opposition, forget that.

The fact is that this legislation is an attempt to give certainty to all those agencies that will have to make pretty hard decisions, in real time, out in dangerous situations. It is appropriate that we look at these pieces of legislation in that manner.

When last week's debate is raised, I want those that sit opposite to think about their contributions to that debate. Their contributions fell for the mistake of a party that goes out of government at a point in time and then thinks that the world does not change from that point in time—that their policies at that point in time are then always contemporary. There is a failure to look at the situation in a contemporary manner and then to develop, modify or tweak policies so that they suit the situation five years on, in 2012.

But there was one significant contribution—it was to do with issues that are raised in these pieces of legislation on maritime powers—from a member opposite: the member for Kooyong. The member for Kooyong actually mentioned regional cooperation. That was pretty good. What was the Houston committee on about? The context—the whole package—includes regional cooperation in the processing of asylum seekers. I disagree with the member for Kooyong in his analysis that this government has not pursued regional cooperation with appropriate vigour. I think he is wrong on that point. But he was the only one that reminded the House, as I have on other occasions, that regional cooperation under the Bali process commenced with the coalition government. It was one of their better moves. But it does not suit their political narrative, because suddenly regional cooperation with countries like Indonesia, Malaysia or any of the 40-plus countries that are in the Bali process somehow would not be hairy chested enough. It would not show them as being tough. It would show them as being sensible. It would show them as understanding that this is an issue that will not go away—that this is an issue where our response has to range from dealing with the misery of those who have died at sea through to dealing with those who have proceeded in a measured way through the assessment of their claims for refuge as international asylum seekers. That is the breadth of the issues that confront us.

As I said, I was happy that the member for Cook was measured. I disagree with the emphasis that he places on the word 'illegal'. He made a response to issues raised by the member for Parramatta in this debate. I believe that it was appropriate that the member for Parramatta raised those issues. But let's look at the Houston report. Again—it is applicable to these pieces of legislation—they talked about IMAs, illegal maritime arrivals. We have to have a language when we are dealing with these things; it would be better if we kept it simple and understandable. So we have IMAs and we have SIEVs, suspected illegal entry vessels—I think I have that right—and that has become part of our nomenclature. Those terms can be interpreted by those that feel that they are at the compassionate, progressive end of the spectrum in the debate as being nasty, pejorative terms. Hardliners say, 'That is really what they are,' and make an interpretation that it is all about the 'I' for 'illegal'.

But, significantly, the member for Cook agreed that the people on those vessels, even if the vessels are called SIEVs and the people are called IMAs, have every right under the international agreements that this government has entered into—I understand that the whole of the parliament agrees that we are participants in those agreements and agrees that we should participate in them to the fullest—to seek asylum. Why is it that once the people get to that point we cannot simply talk about them as 'asylum seekers', which, at that point in time, they are? There is not emotion in that; it is a simple statement of fact. At that time, as the member for Cook acknowledged, they have a legal right to seek asylum. It may be that down the track, when it has been decided that they are not refugees, they return to being 'illegal', but that is a different matter. In the debate, where there is emotion, we place great value—great weight—on these terms. And that does not help the debate in this place.

I know that I should not be so thin skinned. I know that I should not be provoked, but, if we are going to have these debates, we should talk about the couple of decades of these issues. Let us celebrate that a government is trying to bring all the agencies together so that they understand what each is doing and what is expected of them and that we are all working in the national interest. It disappoints me that from time to time the debates in this place are not conducted in the national interest.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to follow the member for Cook and the member for Stirling on the Maritime Powers Bill 2012 and Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012. It has been interesting listening to the debate from members opposite on these bills, on maritime powers in the context of the MV Parsifal and on what has been happening in recent weeks on the government's border protection measures.

It almost feels as though the member for Parramatta and the member for Scullin really do have an issue to take up—an issue with their own government. The people they really hold concern for are the people running the country, and the proposals they disagree with are their own government's proposals. If ever you wanted an example of the contortions of this government in relation to border protection and maritime powers, this issue really has revealed it here today, in this chamber.

The debate has seen the member for Parramatta lament what has happened with MV Parsifal, not the fact that some illegal activity may have occurred but that we as an opposition are pointing out that the government has met this serious situation with absolute weakness. Yes, as the member for Scullin said, I am a hardliner on border protection. I make no apologies for it. I make no apologies for it, because it saves lives, it saves money and it produces a better result for Australians—for Australian taxpayers and for people seeking asylum in Australia today. It is better to be tough on border protection, and I am a strong advocate for it.

I have stood in this place before and said, 'It's okay to be soft and humanitarian on border protection,' as well—as the Greens have. I do not agree with the member for Melbourne, but he is principled. What I do accuse the government of is straddling both sides of the fence and achieving absolutely nothing. In fact, the member for Scullin said that you have to look at things the way they are, not the way you want them to be. You have to accept that time has moved on.

We have accepted that time has moved on. We have noted that it is not the same as 2007, when you had a highly successful, strong government with the strength of conviction and will to run a border protection system and which had clear definitions of maritime powers. What we have had since 2007 is the unravelling of border protection measure after border protection measure. It is a change in the circumstance brought about by this government, bit by bit, until we got to the point this year where we had to—and were forced to as a parliament—return to the system that produced the best results. It was not with an acknowledgement from the government of, 'Gee, we got that wrong all along; oh, my gosh, that was a terrible thing.' It was to somehow stand here, as the member for Parramatta did, and say, 'Look, I don't like the word "illegal".'

Contrast here that very emotive speech, and that the word 'illegal' is somehow unpalatable for this parliament, with the factual presentation of the member for Cook. He quoted sections of the refugee conventions referring to illegal entries, specifying what an illegal entry represents. Let us name it for what it is. If people come here illegally they should be named as coming here illegally. The government worries about the semantics and the language: 'Oh, gee, don't say that; that's a bit nasty. Oh, my gosh, you're too tough.' These are the contortions that we see inside this government that produces bad policy. Bad policy costs people's lives. Bad policy costs money. Bad policy has serious consequences.

The member for Scullin said, 'Why are we raising issues with these bills before us today?' Well, I am suspicious of the government's motives in presenting the Maritime Powers Bill 2012. I am concerned about the detail. The detail matters. The government has failed in getting the details right in so many pieces of legislation before this chamber in recent times. Each member is right to get up here and raise concerns. What concerns have we raised? The member for Cook and the member for Stirling have eloquently expressed our concerns with refoulement. We have referred the bill to the relevant Senate committee to consider it. We are suspicious about why we have a bill consolidating maritime powers appearing at the same time that we have a demonstration of weakness in relation to the MV Parsifal.

We know that the merchant ship MV Parsifal rescued a boatload of asylum seekers and was then subjected to threats of violence and intimidation from the asylum seekers it had rescued. We know that the captain had become concerned for the safety of his crew. Even though he had determined under the relevant provisions of rescues at sea that Singapore was the relevant port to take the ship to, because of the concerns—because of the dramas created by those he had rescued—he had to return to Australia.

I found the member for Stirling's points in relation to this very important. Where does this end? Why is the government consolidating maritime powers and consequential amendments on this when we have no comprehensive way of addressing what occurred? When are boats considered to be doing the right thing or the wrong thing? When are the people on board those boats, the asylum seekers—threatening the safety of crew—considered to be doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

The member for Parramatta seemed to think, 'Don't you dare raise what people do on these boats; they have a right to do it.' I do not believe that principle can be extended to what is going on in our seas and in our border protection system. People do have a responsibility to behave humanely, especially when the ship's captain is rescuing them from distress, as he is obliged to, and I do not believe it is then right for anybody to turn around and engage in illegal behaviour. For the member for Parramatta to suggest, 'Well, they're desperate; if I were in that situation I could see myself acting in a way that would be different from the way we act here,' I do not think is a powerful or persuasive argument. In fact, I find it to be an argument for a stronger system and stronger legislation.

The opposition has a concern that this bill is being raised to make it look like the government are doing something. They see bills that they pass through this parliament as action. The Leader of the House is fond of saying that they have passed this many bills or that many bills—as if more laws are better, or the more numerous the laws the better our society is governed. But the quality of the bill, the quality of what is in it, is absolutely paramount. It is not simply the case that the more bills you pass the better it is.

Consolidating the framework for the exercise of the Commonwealth's maritime enforcement powers could be seen as a good objective. The consolidation of bills and frameworks is something that generally I support.

However, there has to be an examination of what the government is proposing here and whether anybody's obligations under the bills will change. The Customs Act 1901, the Migration Act 1958, the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 all need to be examined in the context of what is going on. We do not want the government to make a mistake or have unintended consequences from a consolidation bill at a time when this is such a grave concern.

I have risen in this place before to express my very serious concerns with the government's management of our borders. The Maritime Powers Bill gives us another opportunity to highlight what is going on in the government's failure to protect our borders. The member for Cook made another valid point: the Department of Immigration and Citizenship has not yet made a submission to the relevant House committee or Senate committee to which the bill was referred. The Australian Crime Commission's submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill made a point of noting how difficult it is to manage Australia's long and vulnerable coastlines. I would simply add that, as a member for a Sydney electorate which has recently been subjected to an increased range of shooting crimes and gun crimes, I accept the member for Stirling's points that cuts to border protection and cuts to Customs screening of vessels have led to bad outcomes, especially for the people of Sydney who are the victims of more illegal gun crime.

It is counterintuitive for the government to be talking about maritime powers when they have been making cuts to Customs and border protection screening on our nation's borders to the tune of $58.1 million, when greater volumes of cargo are hitting our borders every single day. When the Howard government left office, 60 per cent of air cargo consignments were being inspected, which Labor has cut by about three-quarters, meaning that there is a greater chance of illicit goods being shipped into Australia. I think this has had a real impact in the Sydney basin. Sea cargo inspections have been reduced by 25 per cent at a time when the Australian Crime Commission, in its submission, openly acknowledged that organised criminal gangs are taking advantage of the lax conditions at wharfs and exploiting weaknesses in the system.

I do not intend to go much further into this bill, other than to say that the member for Parramatta and the member for Scullin really have issues with their own government and their own government's policy. It is to that government they should turn with their concerns. If they have concerns about the word 'illegal' they should really look at the sections of the refugee conventions that the member for Cook raised to understand that people are entering Australia illegally, that the people smugglers are running an illegal operation, that removing documents or paying money to people smugglers is acting illegally and that people threatening the captain of a ship in order to turn around and move to another port are acting illegally. I make no apology for being tough on such people who are acting illegally. Of course people have the right to seek asylum in Australia and of course there are circumstances where that might happen, but we must devise a system which is strong on border protection so that people do not make a risky journey and so that we do not have the incidents at sea like the MV Parsifal. For government members to stand here in this House today and lament the situation on behalf of people who may well be acting inappropriately or illegally on these boats I think is unacceptable.

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

I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. The Maritime Powers Bill 2012 and the Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 provide a simpler approach to maritime enforcement through streamlining the operational framework of our on-water enforcement agencies.

The maritime domain poses particular challenges to the effective enforcement of laws. Enforcement operations in maritime areas frequently occur in remote locations, isolated from the support normally available to land based operations and constrained by the practicalities of sea based work. Under the current legislative framework, operational agencies use powers contained in at least 35 separate Commonwealth acts. This structure is inefficient and can lead to operational difficulties for the primary on-water enforcement agencies.

The Maritime Powers Bill provides a smarter and simpler approach to maritime enforcement through a single maritime enforcement law. This single role consolidates and harmonises the Commonwealth's existing maritime enforcement regime. The powers contained in this bill are modelled on powers currently available to operational agencies. The bill establishes a system of authorisations under which a maritime officer may exercise enforcement powers in the maritime domain. In addition to providing the necessary operational flexibility, this system of authorisations includes a range of safeguards to make sure maritime enforcement powers are authorised and exercised appropriately and for a proper purpose. The key safeguard is the requirement for the exercise of powers to be authorised on specific grounds by a senior maritime officer or a member of the Australian Federal Police. This provides clarity around who must make decisions to take enforcement action and ensures appropriate oversight in the exercise of powers. The types of authorisations available under the bill will cover a wide range of enforcement situations which arise in the maritime environment including fishing, Customs and migration matters. Enforcement powers under the bill will be exercised by officers of the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Federal Police and other persons appointed to conduct enforcement and monitoring activities in the maritime environment. The Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill repeals maritime enforcement powers in a number of other acts where they overlap the powers in the Maritime Powers Bill.

I want to turn to some of the specific comments raised in the debate. The member for Stirling's statements about cuts to Customs are, frankly, pretty rich coming from a party that needs to make $70 billion worth of cuts and plans to sack 12,000 public servants if it wins the next election. The shadow Treasurer said earlier this year, 'For a start, 12,000 public servants in Canberra will be made redundant over a two-year period immediately upon us being elected.' The shadow minister has also refused to rule out cuts to Customs. When he was quizzed about this—

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The parliamentary secretary is wrapping up a bill on maritime issues. How that strays into comments made by a shadow minister prior to the last election is simply beyond the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden. The parliamentary secretary has the call and she will be, as she would understand, relevant to the bill that she is summing up.

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

As the member for Stirling raised the issues of cuts to Customs, I am being relevant to the bill and to the debate. When quizzed, the shadow minister said it was impossible for him to give any guarantee around that, so to attack the government on cuts in this debate is fairly rich. In fact, we have spent more than $1 billion a year on Customs and Border Protection, and it is getting results. Last year we seized more heroin, cocaine and amphetamines than ever before. Earlier this month we seized half a billion dollars worth of illegal drugs—the largest seizure of ice in Australian history and the third-largest heroin seizure. That is more than we often seize in an entire year. The amount of drugs and illicit materials we seize in air cargo has more than doubled since we came to office, and that is because we are investing in intelligence. It is important. Ask any expert in the field and they will tell you that intelligence is the key to catching crooks and seizing drugs and guns. We are investing in intelligence, and we ask the opposition to do the same.

Some of the members who have spoken, particularly the member for Cook, have raised concerns about the operation of various powers under the bill. I remind those members that this bill does not enlarge or reduce any such powers. The bill, importantly, harmonises existing provisions across a range of laws to provide a smarter and simpler approach to maritime enforcement. The explanatory memorandum raises matters regarding the implementation of Australia's obligations with respect to nonrefoulement and under a range of international legal instruments. The issues exist in relation to current legislative powers and will continue to exist in relation to the legislation as harmonised in this bill.

The member for Cook also queried whether the government has fully engaged with the relevant stakeholders. I assure the member that, over the several years during which the harmonisation process has been carefully undertaken, all relevant departments have been fully engaged. The members opposite also seem keen to use this bill to debate the question of asylum seekers and the recent expert panel report. I remind members that this bill is not directed to those matters. This bill is an important regulatory step to simplify and harmonise on-water enforcement operations.

In conclusion, the Australian government is committed to ensuring that Australia's laws are effectively monitored and enforced in the maritime domain. The unique aspects of the maritime environment merit a tailored approach to maritime powers. These bills ensure flexibility in the exercise of these powers, allowing maritime officers to deal with quickly changing circumstances in often difficult and dangerous situations. These bills will streamline and modernise Australia's legal framework for maritime enforcement and thereby support the hardworking Australians who work on our behalf to uphold Australia's maritime laws. These reforms are just one aspect of the government's work to provide Australia with a modern legal framework.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum and commend these bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill a second time.