Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aviation and maritime security should be above partisan politics. It is the responsibility of any federal government of any political persuasion to ensure that our nation's transport security arrangements are fit for purpose and up to date with the security threats of the day. It is equally the responsibility of any federal opposition to scrutinise proposals put forward by the government in the spirit of cooperation, offering advice where it can while avoiding needless political partisanship. That is the approach that Labor has always taken over my 20 years in this parliament, and for the most part it has been the approach of the coalition.

The member for Wide Bay and I had much conflict over transport policy over the many years that we shadowed each other prior to his recent decision to step down from the frontbench and the leadership of the Nationals and, therefore, the Deputy Prime Ministership. But during that time we worked together on the serious issues that related to the safety of the travelling public, regardless of which of us was in government. I am sure that the new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, will take the same approach. However, I want to point out to the minister that this bill, toughening background checks on Australian aviation and shipping workers, comes as the government is actively encouraging Australian shipping companies to sack their Australian crews and replace them with foreign crews whose background is simply not subject to the same level of checks. Indeed, yesterday afternoon we learnt of yet another Australian crew being sacked and replaced by a presumably foreign crew. I refer to BP's decision to terminate use of the British Loyalty oil tanker and sack its Australian crew. I will return to that point later in this contribution.

While this legislation seeks to ensure that Australian workers in airports and ports have no links to organised crime or terrorists, the government is pursuing an approach to the maritime industry that actually undermines that goal, because it undermines the very presence of an Australian flag on the back of ships around our coasts and the presence of Australian mariners on those ships. That makes no sense. That is why I have not just referred to the economic and environmental consequences of an explicit policy that favours foreign ships over Australian ships around our coast. The policy also has national security implications.

As I referred to a moment ago, the world of transport safety is a dynamic one. The frequent emergence of new threats requires constant vigilance on the part of law-makers. For example, in the 20th century no-one would have imagined the huge changes to the world's airports that were made necessary by the terrorist attacks on New York on 11 September 2001. We have to respond to threats as they arise, and we also have to anticipate what those new threats are and take actions in a precautionary way, if we deem them to be necessary. We should take proper advice and not play politics with national security.

When introducing this legislation, the member for Wide Bay said that it was part of the government's response to the recommendations of last December's report from the National Ice Taskforce. The task force found that 200,000 Australians use the crystalline form of methamphetamine, also known as ice. It called for stronger law enforcement measures to tackle the trafficking of the drug, including toughening background checks made on people seeking Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards.

In response, this bill proposes strengthening the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act. These are laws that were created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In their current form, they are designed to prevent unlawful interference in the aviation and maritime sectors that could cause damage to passengers, crew, workers or property. They are aimed at preventing terrorist attacks on airports, ports, aircraft and ships. They ensure that before any port or airport worker is granted an identity card, he or she is subject to strict background checks to ensure that he or she has no connections to terrorist groups. The bill before us today seeks to broaden the scope of these checks to also include checks on an applicant's background for links to, 'serious and organised crime'. It, therefore, adds to the existing laws a secondary purpose aimed at preventing drug trafficking.

Labor will not oppose this legislation in the House of Representatives. We agree that parliament should respond to the recommendations of the National Ice Taskforce with respect to drug trafficking. We need to focus on law enforcement as well as helping addicts with treatment. However, the opposition does have concerns about this bill, relating to the possibility of unintended consequences. That is why we reserve our position when it comes to the Senate, after there is a proper, open and transparent process to make sure that there are not unintended consequences of this bill. I appreciate the fact that the minister ensured that I had a departmental briefing on this legislation. Hence, we will not be moving amendments at this stage in the House of Representatives or opposing the bill.

We want to make sure that these issues are not partisan, but we also want to make sure that combining checks relating to terrorism and organised crime is the most appropriate way to deal with maritime and aviation security. Specifically, we question whether the addition of an organised crime check to the existing terrorism check might inadvertently affect the level of rigor that applies to the terrorism check. That is a standard which applies to security in the transport sector. There are very specific reasons why, for example, we check for the presence of certain goods being carried on aircraft and do not check for others. We do it so that those people responsible for the checks can concentrate on what can cause real damage if someone acts inappropriately, for example, on an aircraft. That is why through the changes I made as aviation minister we deemed that the previous ban, for example, on cutlery on aircraft was not appropriate given the circumstances of what could occur on an aircraft. We constantly have to update these regulations and laws. I understand that. At that time that practical change received bipartisan support—eventually—from the then opposition.

We know from events in New York the consequences of terrorist infiltration of aircraft. We know that one terrorist attack on an aircraft can literally cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. That is why the ASIC and MSIC card regimes were brought into effect. It is essential that authorities maintain a laser-like focus on protecting the travelling public. The parliament must be very careful about making changes to existing security arrangements without serious and widespread consultation. The last thing we want to see when dealing with drug trafficking is our efforts compromising transport safety. That is why Labor has already moved to establish a Senate inquiry on this matter. Call it due diligence. We would like to hear a range of views on how transport security checks are working and how the system might be affected by the proposed change.

I stress again that the opposition understands that the intent of this legislation is to address drug trafficking and specifically the scourge of ice that is having such a terrible impact on so many of our communities, particularly those in rural and regional Australia. The impact on young people is quite horrific. It is a drug that leads to violence, break up of families and literally death and destruction in local communities. We as a parliament should do what we can to get rid off this scourge, but we also need to ensure that transport security is not compromised in that process.

That is why the new minister across the table here, Mr Chester, should examine these issues carefully. He should also, I think, examine the clear inconsistencies between this legislation's aim of ensuring that maritime workers have no links with terrorists or organised crime and the government's parallel agenda of encouraging greater use of foreign flagged ships crewed by foreign crews. The legislation that was rejected by the Senate last year explicitly stated in its explanatory memorandum and in its regulatory impact statement that it would result in the reflagging of Australian ships with foreign flags and the replacement of Australian mariners with foreign mariners on those ships.

It is unfortunate that, ever since it took office, the government has been seeking to undermine the Australian domestic shipping industry. Last year it attempted to legislate to end any preference for Australian flagged vessels in the domestic cargo trade. This legislation would have required Australian flagged vessels that pay crews Australian-level wages to compete directly with foreign flagged vessels crewed by foreign mariners being paid Third World wages. Obviously, given their lower wage rates, the overseas flagged vessels would have had a competitive advantage. That is why we have labelled this legislation 'Work Choices on water'. That is why the legislation was rejected in the Senate.

Since the Senate rejected that move, the government has sought to achieve its objective through the back door. It has been abusing a provision of existing maritime law which allows the use of foreign vessels for temporary work where no Australian ship is available. The former government introduced legislation that was flexible and gave preference to Australian ships unashamedly but said, where they were not available, foreign ships could be used but that their workers would have to be paid Australian wages under Australian conditions. The new government has abused the fact that this was not protectionist legislation and did not close our coast to foreign ships to indeed close the coast to Australian flagged vessels. That is basically what has happened here. The government facilitating the sacking of 40 Australian mariners by granting Alcoa a licence and allowing it to replace the MV Portland with a foreign vessel is, perhaps, the most explicit abuse of these laws. For decades the MV Portland had taken the raw material in Western Australia around the coast of the Great Australian Bight to Portland where it was off-loaded at the refinery. It then got taken back to Western Australia.

Nothing could be less temporary than a freight task, purely domestic, from one destination to another and return. That was the sole duty of the MV Portland. Yet a temporary licence was granted, even though temporary licences are for temporary work where no Australian ship was available. But the MV Portland, of course, was there, as were those 40 Australian mariners, who were real Australians with real families, earning real wages, paying real Australian taxes, putting real food on the table for their families and contributing to that local regional economy in Portland, and they were wiped out by the ideology of this government. It is quite extraordinary that the visas were given to the foreign crew and that the former minister, the member for Wide Bay, was notified on 17 December that this was going to happen, but he remained silent on it for weeks while those workers and their families defended Australian jobs.

The problem is that Australian authorities have far less awareness of the backgrounds of overseas mariners than they have of local mariners, whose backgrounds have been vetted as part of the process of issuing a Maritime Security Identification Card. That is the truth. We have this legislation before the parliament, which would enhance what are already very rigorous security checks for anyone working in our airports and ports, but we are allowing essentially a free-for-all around our coast and in our harbours on these vessels without any real security checks, and we are favouring that. So if you are working on the dock unloading a ship, or if you are the truck driver taking goods from the port, or if you are anyone accessing that area, then you go through this extraordinary level of security checking already. Yet, if you are on one of these ships from a country in our region,—and a lot of the countries, of course, use Third World workers from the Philippines or from Indonesia or other countries because they pay them Third World wages—which are full of petrol and are in our harbours around the most populated areas of the country, what could go wrong? Yet this government favours it.

In 2012, so you do not have to take my word for it, the Office of the Inspector of Transport Security said with respect to the offshore oil and gas sector—the Office of the Inspector of Transport Security is independent of the government of the day, and it was an office that was established by the Howard government:

As the Australian-based industry and associated employment demands continue to grow, the employee profile of many companies is changing and more foreign workers, generally operating under 457 visa arrangements, are being engaged.

As is the case internationally, the ability to effectively vet potential employees, either through company recruitment processes, Maritime Security Identification Cards (MSICs), passport or 457 visa related checks is essentially limited to basic character style assessment and cannot operate as a genuine security clearance process. These limitations need to be understood and reflected in other and wider complementary security arrangements.

Let me repeat those words of the Office of the Inspector of Transport Security, not my words. They said, 'cannot operate as a genuine security clearance process.' What this means is that while this parliament is today being asked to consider toughening up the MSIC and ASIC process, the government is going out of its way to replace Australians with MSICs with foreign crews which have not been through a proper security clearance process. That is a fact and it is very concerning. I am advised that there are ports in regional Australian where people can access them with nothing more than a passport or a driver's licence of whatever country they come from. We need to tighten security not undermine it.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection also has security concerns about the implications of a shift to the use of more foreign flagged ships registered in flag-of-convenience nations like Panama and Liberia. They are ships whose very ownership is often hidden in structures which are far from transparent. In a submission to the Senate inquiry being conducted now into the increasing use of flag-of-convenience vessels in Australian waters, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection warned this government:

… there are features of FOC registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups may seek to exploit.

It went on to say that, in many flag-of-convenience nations, there was limited transparency about the identity of the owners of vessels. This is the government's own department of immigration's submission. It said:

Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC—

flag-of-convenience—

ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups.

This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling, and facilitating prohibited imports or exports.

These are very serious issues for a government that talks about border security, from a department that is in charge of border control. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection said that flag-of-convenience ships 'may be used in a range of illegal activities', including people smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports or exports. That did not come from the Labor Party. That did not come from the trade union movement. That came from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. That is why the opposition is concerned about the government's position: there needs to be a consistent attitude towards the national interest and national security when it comes to our coasts.

I note that it has been reported today that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection recognises that the previous minister's legislation, which was rejected by the Senate, was flawed and understands that there is a need to have a different policy. I say again to the minister, as I have said before in private and in public, that the Labor Party are up for reform that assists Australian shipping, assists productivity and is in the national interest, and we are prepared to work with the government, with MIAL—the peak body for the Australian shipping industry—and with the workforce to ensure the growth of the Australian shipping industry. But we are not prepared to sit back and see that industry simply wiped out, which is what the previous legislation explicitly called for.

So the opposition will allow this legislation to go through the House of Representatives unopposed by us, but we do reserve our right to give consideration to changes to the bill when it is in the Senate, on the basis of the committee inquiry and on the basis of submissions that might be made to it, because we do want to make sure that we get this right and that all of these areas have bipartisan support. I say again: you cannot be tightening up security in ports and airports whilst you are ideologically pushing to remove the Australian flag and the Australian workforce from our coastal shipping.

I refer again to the development with BP that I mentioned earlier in my contribution. The British Fidelity is the last Australian-crewed fuel tanker in service around the Australian coast. It takes oil product from Kwinana primarily to Adelaide and other coastal points, with an Australian crew. If this route is now undertaken by a foreign crew, then all of Australia's imported fuel and all other fuel moved around the Australian coast will be done by foreign crews. Think about that. If you do not think there are national security implications to there being no presence of Australian crews when that fuel is moved around the Australian coast, then you have not thought about it very deeply.

And I do not understand how Australia's fuel security is aided by this decision. Our fuel security is so essential to our national economy. I do not know how the minister could possibly have properly applied the act when he issued a temporary licence for a vessel to replace the British Fidelity, knowing, as he must have, that it would be used to facilitate the sacking of Australian workers from work that is done here in Australia.

I say to the minister: he needs to get on top of the national interest here. The National Party, named as it is because, it says, it stands up for Australia's national interest needs to see that, of all of the coalition. I can understand perhaps someone with a small-l libertarian, economic free market philosophy saying there is no need for any Australian flag or Australian presence in this context. Well, there is. There is, due to our economy. But there is also a national security interest here.

I conclude where I began. Transport safety laws are beyond politics. They should also be beyond ideology. That is why we need to have a consistent view on these issues. The government needs to heed the warnings given by experts at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and by the Inspector of Transport Security, put ideology aside and make sure it acts in the national interest when it comes to national security. We on this side will continue to support the national interest and to do so in a consistent fashion.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. As with any legislation we debate in this House that acts to reinforce national security measures, this bill is an equally important bill to speak to. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act, otherwise known as the aviation act, and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, or the maritime act. The amendments contained in this bill seek to reduce criminal influence at Australian airports and seaports by strengthening the aviation security identification card, or ASIC, and the maritime security identification card, or MSIC, schemes. The bill seeks to provide the regulatory framework to support the introduction of revised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes to better target serious or organised crime-related offences. Criminal intelligence coupled with inquiries for extra security measure to combat identified vulnerabilities in the ASIC and MSIC schemes have directly influenced the government's commitment to tightening these security measures.

The provisions within this bill provide effect to the government's 2013 election commitment to reduce potential risks associated with criminal influences at our air and sea ports. The provisions therefore give effect to the government's commitment, as part of the coalition's policy to tackle crime, that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive security clearance to work at airport and seaport entry points.

In addition the bill provides completion to a key action in the government's December 2015 response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce, specifically the implementation of changes to the eligibility criteria for holders of ASIC and MSIC as a means to disrupt the supply of the drug ice in Australia. Along with a comprehensive package of actions the government is taking to combat the ice epidemic in Australia, protecting our air and sea ports from organised criminal activity is another important step in stamping out this insidious blight in our community. I am and always have been a vocal advocate for tackling the epidemic of the drug ice that has laid siege to so many in our local communities. I will continue to advocate for any measures that we as a government can take to provide the care, resources and support for users, their families and children and the wider community to overcome the scourge of ice.

While our frontline health staff deal with admissions of users in drug-induced psychosis and while our frontline law enforcement officers tackle the drug and the destruction left in its wake and while our community services staff work tirelessly to support the families of users gripped by addiction and while our schools keep a watchful eye on children who are witness to the atrocities of this drug, we as a government are committed to taking every step imaginable to stem the flow of this abhorrent drug into our communities. Preventing organised criminal groups from being able to smuggle drugs, especially ice, into Australia to be distributed throughout our communities is another paramount step in turning the tide on the ice epidemic.

At present per capita Australia has the highest number of ice users of any other nation in the world and in my own electorate of Dobell frontline services are facing the daily trials of destruction caused by this drug. The National Ice Taskforce did an outstanding job in identifying a holistic approach to tackling the ice epidemic, and I am continually supportive of the government's vigilance in taking every step possible to eradicate the drug in a strategic and coordinated approach. Organised crime is estimated to cost the Australian economy $36 billion a year and presents a serious threat to our national security. The government recognises that organised criminals are devious in their attempts to peddle drugs such as ice and other contraband into Australia through our airports and seaports.

The reforms proposed by this bill are also designed to protect the aviation and maritime transport systems against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. The reforms enhance the abilities of law enforcement agencies to combat transnational and domestic organised crime through the introduction of additional offences to capture high-risk criminal activities. This government is committed to ensuring Australia is secure and not at risk of exploitation by serious or organised crime.

The August 2015 Australian Strategic Policy Institute special report titled A web of harms: Serious and organise crime and its impacts on Australian interests stated:

The harm is seen clearly at the borders, where serious and organised crime constantly challenges the Australian government's right to control imports and exports. By doing so, organised crime compromises biosecurity, evades taxes and introduces items that the community wishes to exclude from the country. The level of harm is hard to quantify.

There's an ongoing and increasing concern about links between terrorism and organised crime in Australia … These include for instance, terrorist or insurgent groups like the Afghan Taliban or the Colombian FARC, who produce or ship drugs that are consumed in Australia The recent situation in Syria and Iraq, and changes to terrorist recruiting and financing methods, have made such links more prominent over the past year.

Serious and organised crime presents a substantial hazard to Australia' airports and seaports. In the 2009 submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service described serious and organised crime groups' strategies as infiltrating airports and port and related service providers in the supply chain by gaining employment for their members or associates as airport or port workers—they endeavour to corrupt individuals or groups currently operating within airports and ports to obtain their assistance in circumventing border and security controls.

The high-criminal intelligence organisations exploit inside industry knowledge position and networks of corrupt workers in maritime ports and airports to execute criminal activities, including the movement of prohibited goods such as illegal drugs and their chemical ingredients. I do acknowledge, of course, that the vast majority of those operating within the aviation and maritime sectors are legitimate, ethical employees; there are nonetheless the few who seek to exploit vulnerabilities in businesses or individuals working with port workers and others in the supply chain for the express purpose of providing cover for the criminal activities of organised syndicates. The infiltration and corruption of serious and organised crime groups within airports and seaports is a serious concern. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service submission notes:

The maritime environment poses the highest risk in relation to the importation of prohibited goods into Australia, as the bulk of illicit imports enter Australia through the sea cargo environment. Serious and organised crime groups seek to increase the likelihood of a successful importation by concealing larger quantities of illicit good within or amongst large items, such as machinery, in the cargo stream.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will provide the regulatory framework to support the introduction of revised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes that will better target serious or organised crime related offences. Under the ASIC and MSIC schemes, identification cards are issued to all personnel, including foreign nationals who legitimately require access to aviation and maritime areas and zones. It provides the capacity for unescorted access for the card holder to secure aviation and maritime zones, including offshore oil and gas facilities. They will be required to have successfully undergone background checks, which are conducted by AusChec within the Attorney-General's Department. The AusCheck system includes an assessment of information relating to an individual's identity, criminal history, security assessment, citizenship status, residency status or entitlements to work in Australia. The background check assesses whether an applicant for an ASIC or MSIC is likely to pose a security risk, should they be given clearance within airports or seaports.

This bill will: create an additional purpose in the aviation and maritime acts in relation to aviation and maritime area and zones to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime; establish a regulatory framework supporting the implementation of harmonised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes, which better target serious or organised crime related offences. It will also clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders; allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across the ASIC and MSIC schemes; and insert an additional severability provision    to provide guidance to a court as to parliament's intention.

The new eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes to be specified in the aviation and maritime regulations will introduce new offence categories, such as offences under anti-criminal organisation legislation, Foreign Incursions and Recruitment Act and offences related to the illegal importation of goods and/or interfering with goods under Border Force control. Unlawful interference includes conduct that threatens the safe operation of aircraft and airports and ships and ports, which in turn can potentially cause threat or harm to any crew or personnel, passengers, the public or even damage to property. The amendments will apply to all persons required by law to hold an ASIC or MSIC. The bill also provides for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences against requirements made for the purpose of preventing the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime. It also creates a greater consistency between the aviation and maritime acts. Bringing the two into line facilitates transparency and accountability with powers for making regulations and administering both the ASIC and MSIC schemes.

The coalition committed to pursue a zero tolerance approach to corruption in customs agencies and those protecting our borders in our policy to tackle crime. We committed to making sure that people who are or have been involved in serious or organised crime would be prohibited from being able to gain access to or work within our Australian airports or seaports. Coupled with this commitment has been the government's commitment to take emphatic steps to disrupt the supply of ice, as identified by the National Ice Taskforce. The report noted:

Disrupting the ice supply chain through seizures and arrests of key players in importing and trafficking networks remains a critical part of the response to ice. ... An enhanced focus on the supply chain is required, particularly offshore... It is also necessary to remove any potential for infiltration of air and sea ports by organised crime…

Recommendation 24 of a total of 38 recommendations contained in the report is:

The Commonwealth Government should continue to protect the aviation and maritime environment against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria for holders of Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards; and establishing a legal mechanism to enable compelling criminal intelligence to be used in determining suitability of workers to hold such a card.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 is expressly addressing this particular recommendation and gives effect to this part of the government's package of actions to tackle ice.

I thank the Hon. Warren Truss, the Minister for Justice and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism, Michael Keenan, and all stakeholders for their dedication and commitment to tightening security at our airports and seaports. I commend the bill to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise today and join my colleagues to talk about the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. I congratulate my friend and colleague the Hon. Darren Chester on his appointment as Australia's new federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. I look forward to hosting the minister in his new role in my electorate of Capricornia again very soon.

Capricornia is a vast area with many access points by sea and by air. The amendments we are reflecting on today are an important measure to safeguard our nation, people, agriculture and industries from the impact of organised crime.

In the past, a number of reviews have revealed that serious and organised criminals have been exploiting secure maritime and aviation ports for criminal purposes. Our amendments aim to stamp that out. Currently, anyone who has regular access to secure areas at Australia's regulated airports or seaports is required to hold either an aviation or a maritime security identification card. This bill ensures that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive such a security clearance to work at any Australian airport or seaport. In doing so, we are delivering on our coalition's policy to tackle crime.

This marks a big point of difference between our solid Turnbull-Joyce government and a chaotic Labor Party. Under Labor, people with a criminal history were able to get a security clearance to work at ports and airports where cargo comes in and out of our country. On some occasions, these workers were found to be acting corruptly by aiding criminals and facilitating illegal smuggling operations. This allowed for narcotics and dangerous drugs to enter Australia more easily via seaports and airports.

In December 2015, our government's National Ice Taskforce reported a substantial increase in ice imports to Australia in recent years, mainly via our airports and maritime ports. In fact, over five tonnes of ice was seized at the Australian border from 2010 to 2015. Alarmingly, there is a growing trend of ice use in regional Australia, and this must be appropriately addressed. Tighter security procedures at our airports and shipping terminals will help to crack down on ice trafficking. Banning criminals from obtaining work passes on these sites will also help.

Last year, I was pleased to facilitate a high-profile ministerial hearing in Rockhampton to discuss the local impact of ice in my electorate of Capricornia. It was attended by the Minister for Rural Health. Local ambos, the front-line medicos who help us in an emergency, described the fear and danger of treating young people who are high on ice in the streets. And, sadly, parents described the devastating impact of ice on their children. They described how the behaviour of a teenager hooked on ice also harms siblings and family members. Crystal methamphetamine is a significant issue for Central Queensland. I was shocked to learn that ice was more commonly used in regional and remote areas like mine and has even made its way into some primary schools in the country. One delegate, who operates a rehabilitation service in Rockhampton, told of how he was inspired to help because his own daughter was an ice addict. Local police say that ice addicts account for violent crimes, armed hold-ups and break-ins to obtain cash to feed their habit, while the director of Rockhampton Base Hospital's emergency department reported that ice addicts who fall into a violent psychosis were a danger to themselves and to other patients and families in the hospital waiting rooms. Drug pushers are targeting regional Australia because they can get some of the highest prices in the world for ice here.

Tackling the ice scourge that is harming so many communities is a top priority for our coalition government. Nationally, statistics show the growth of ice and meth use is very alarming. One in 14 Australians have tried ice, and 200,000 Australians have used ice in the past 12 months. Meth or ice imports jumped from five per cent of all illegal drug imports in 2011 to 59 per cent in 2014. The rate of people receiving treatment for meth use has doubled in Australia in the last three years.

Our Australian government's National Ice Taskforce inquiry has been a positive step to help identify ways to combat the issue through health, education and law programs. The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will safeguard against unlawful interference with our aviation and maritime transport sectors, through which ice is often imported and distributed.

In the meantime, people in Central Queensland, fed up with the impact of the drug ice, can take action by dobbing in a local drug dealer. Last week, I joined police, Crime Stoppers and civic leaders to launch a Dob in a Dealer campaign in Rockhampton to combat the ice epidemic. The Turnbull-Joyce coalition government is partnering Crime Stoppers and providing $1 million to fund this campaign. The aim is to encourage local people to contact Crime Stoppers in a bid to help tackle the manufacturing and distribution of ice in this area. Crime Stoppers plays a valuable role in collecting information from the public to help police. I urge everyone to say, 'Enough is enough,' and to rid our streets, parks, neighbourhoods, airports and shipping ports of ice dealers, who are profiteering and leaving a trail of sick and desperate users, not to mention devastated families. The Dob in a Dealer campaign will help send a clear message to local and international drug kingpins targeting Central Queensland that they we do not want them operating here. To dob in someone who is manufacturing or dealing in ice, call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or go online at crimestoppers.com.au. If we can stop organised criminals from peddling ice, we can potentially save lives.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill will make our ports and airports more secure to combat ice being smuggled across our borders. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 amends two acts that cover aviation security and maritime security respectively to add an additional purpose to these acts to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport in connection with serious and organised crime.

Organised crime is a blight on our nation. The Australian Crime Commission conservatively estimates that serious and organised crime costs the Australian economy $15 billion each year.

Unsurprisingly, considering the huge sums of money involved, those who perpetrate this type of crime are becoming more sophisticated, more devious and more determined. Their aim is to always keep one step ahead of the law, and we are seeing quite a bit in modern times just how sophisticated some of the crime networks are, particularly those associated with money laundering and drug crime. Organised criminal groups involved in international drug trafficking are diversifying. They are no longer trading in one drug or commodity; some groups have begun trafficking in a number of commodities, including multiple drug types in the same shipment. Cooperation between organised crime groups is becoming more apparent, as is the intertwining of different types of criminal activities being undertaken by some organised crime groups.

As the member for Kingsford Smith, my community—our community—is home to the largest airport and the second-largest container port in the country. So our area is the gateway through which many organised criminal gangs seek to traffic their drugs and illegal goods and substances, to gain access to the Australian market, and over the course of the last decade in particular we have seen the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission foil a number of very big and very sophisticated attempts at the airport and the port—in particular, to smuggle drugs into the country.

Those busts led to a review of the operations of our security and the border force laws. The review was undertaken when the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare, was the minister, and it led to a number of reforms in the latter years of the previous Labor government. Those reforms, it is pleasing to see, have been taken up on a bipartisan basis by the current government. The reforms relate to changes to accreditation around ports and airports for people who are employed by organisations to work in these areas, to cracking down and strengthening the criteria and the testing of people's criminal records before they are given employment in these areas, and, of course, to extra law enforcement powers that have been quite effective.

Marine ports such as Port Botany are large, with significant workforces, and this creates certain difficulties for effective regulation and security, which can leave open loopholes for criminals and criminal gangs to exploit. Airports too can be subject to criminal infiltration, making levels of security, screening and vetting vital to preventing the proliferation of criminal behaviour. It is of course vital that we maintain strong processes to ensure that our borders and the staff that patrol them are resourced sufficiently to do this important job in the most effective manner possible.

Labor supports well-targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as the means to distribute drugs and other contraband into and out of Australia commit crimes. We know it happens, and unfortunately it happens quite regularly. A recent example I can point to was the seizure of 22 kilograms or $23 million worth of methamphetamine, or ice, and one kilogram of cocaine from a cargo ship at Port Botany. This seizure took place only a couple of months ago, in January. Also in January there was another seizure at Port Botany of almost 500 kilograms of illegal drugs, including 159 kilograms of ice and 340 kilograms of ephedrine, a precursor to methamphetamine. Concealed in three shipping containers that arrived in Sydney on 1 January—on New Year's Day—was this contraband. This haul had a street value of more than $105 million.

So we know that the syndicates are becoming more sophisticated and that we need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary backup and laws to ensure that they can enforce and uncover these crimes whilst they are taking place, and Labor of course supports sensible and effective measures to minimise this trade, detect the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

The National Ice Taskforce reported in December last year. It was chaired by former police Commissioner Mr Ken Lay. The report was welcomed by Labor. We supported measures to align and refine the Aviation Security Identification Cards or ASICs, as they are known, and the Maritime Security Identification Cards, or MSICs, to ensure that persons accessing secure areas around airports, ports, aircraft and ships are subject to proper background checks. Labor also welcomed the release of the report and noted that:

Despite the best efforts of officers on the ground, law enforcement efforts have actually failed to halt the supply of ice even though there have been increased seizure and arrests rates.

To divert for a moment, one of the important recommendations and realisations that was made by Ken Lay and the Ice Taskforce was that, unfortunately, with respect to this issue, we cannot arrest our way out of it—that simply pumping more money into law enforcement when it comes to ice is not the answer and that we do need to look at rehabilitation and harm minimisation programs.

There has been a stark contrast between the approach of this government and the approach of the New Zealand government when it comes to tackling ice. In New Zealand, as a result of an inquiry similar to that of the Ice Taskforce, they devoted almost all of their additional funding to rehabilitation and harm minimisation programs. The evidence is that they are getting better results in New Zealand than we are in Australia because in Australia we spend a very low proportion on those programs. I think it is close to 70 per cent of the funds that are expended in tackling ice and other drug problems in our community go to law enforcement and only about 11 per cent of the funding goes to harm minimisation. We do really need to look at the mix of that funding and whether or not we are being effective. Reports from the Ice Taskforce and evidence that the problem is growing, that more and more people are being arrested for this, going to jail, coming out worse and getting back on the ice—the problem proliferating in our community—are something we need to seriously consider.

The current purpose of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 is to establish regulatory frameworks to safeguard against 'unlawful interference' in aviation and maritime operations. These acts were created in a post-September 11 risk environment. 'Unlawful interference' is currently defined, in both acts, as being acts that impede the operation of airports, aircraft, ports, offshore facilities or ships, or which place the safety of ships or aircraft at risk—with exceptions for mere advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. The focus is, accordingly, on targeting behaviour that may cause death or other harm to passengers, workers or the general public, including damage to property.

The changes proposed for these acts will add a new, secondary purpose to both acts, as per above, and administer this through changes to eligibility criteria for existing aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards. There are approximately 130,000 ASIC and MSIC on issue. In respect of what is proposed, Labor has identified that there is a potential risk, that widening the purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the two missions of transport security and targeting serious or organised crime in the transport system. Both these tasks are important. The question is whether achievement of both is best done via the mechanism here, and it is still in doubt.

For this reason, Labor has indicated it will refer this bill and these important reforms to a Senate inquiry, for the Senate to have a look at those issues of the purpose of transport security legislation and whether or not we are confusing the two missions of that particular legislation. Otherwise, I am happy to add my voice to the importance of ensuring that our aviation and maritime security legislation is first class and ensures we are doing all we can to keep pace with the sophistication of crime syndicates and networks that are posing a big risk to the productivity of our nation and, ultimately—unfortunately—doing a lot of harm to our community through the drug trade.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. The current ice problem is not some nightmare based in a distant land. It is on our streets, in our towns and in our homes. The unfortunate addicts are real. They are in our communities. They are our neighbours and family members. Between 2010 and 2014 the amount of ice seized at the Australian border grew almost 60 times. Police made record busts and 26,000 arrests for possession or distribution of this drug.

This bill will ensure that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australian airports and seaports. It will make it harder for drug dealers to bring ice into our country and our community. Organised crime is a serious threat to our security and prosperity as a nation. Recently, the Australian Crime Commission estimated that organised crime cost the Australian economy $36 billion annually. In 2013, the government made a commitment to ensuring that people with a history of serious or organised crime would not receive a security clearance to work at our Australian airports and seaports. In 2015, the government also committed to comprehensive action on the drug ice. The National Ice Taskforce, in its final report released late last year, estimated that there are currently well over 200,000 Australian users.

The National Ice Taskforce identified as a clear priority the need for targeted and coordinated law enforcement efforts to disrupt the supply of ice, specifically by protecting the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime, by strengthening the eligibility criteria for the aviation and maritime security identification card schemes also known as the ASIC and MSIC schemes.

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, aimed at reducing criminal influence at our airports and seaports by strengthening the ASIC and MSIC schemes. The aviation and maritime acts establish a regulatory framework to safeguard against unlawful interference with the aviation and maritime sectors. Unlawful interference is defined in the aviation and maritime acts as conduct that threatens the safe operation of aircraft and airports, ports and ships, and behaviour that may cause harm to passengers, crew, aviation and maritime personnel and the general public, or damage to property.

This bill will create an additional purpose to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime. This additional purpose will only apply to the administration of the ASIC and MSIC schemes and not to the regulation of the aviation and maritime sectors more broadly. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are important security measures that are intended to protect both sectors. They require all persons, including foreign nationals, who require unescorted access to secure aviation and maritime areas, including offshore oil and gas facilities, to undergo a comprehensive background check. The background check includes a criminal history check, a national security assessment and, for non-citizens, an immigration status check.

Under the current system, if an applicant is convicted of a wide range of serious and minor aviation or maritime security related offences, this person is likely to be given an adverse security status. The list of aviation and maritime security relevant offences is contained in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 and is collectively known as the eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes. Applicants who receive an adverse security assessment are ineligible to be granted an ASIC or MSIC. However, they can make an application to the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for discretionary approval to be granted, depending on the nature of the offence.

The amendments proposed by the bill provide the regulatory framework to enable the introduction of new eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes. The new criteria better target serious or organised crime and will ensure that people with a history of serious or organised crime do not receive clearance to access secure areas and exploit our aviation and maritime sectors However, modelling suggests that the new eligibility criteria will also result in more people with minor criminal offences being found eligible, without needing to go through the discretionary card process.

The new eligibility criteria will be set out in the aviation and maritime regulations and introduce additional categories of offences such as offences under anticriminal organisation legislation, foreign incursion and recruitment offences, illegal importation of goods and interfering with goods under Border Force control. Currently, the same offence can have different implications depending on whether you are applying for an ASIC or an MSIC. The bill will provide for the alignment of the eligibility criteria in the aviation and maritime regulations so that the same criteria apply across the aviation and maritime sectors.

The bill also promotes greater consistency between the aviation and maritime acts. The change will also result in greater transparency and accountability, with express regulation-making powers for the administration of the ASIC and MSIC schemes, rather than the current reliance on general regulation-making powers in the act. Specifically, the bill will amend the maritime act to clearly provide for all persons seeking to access secure maritime zones to undertake background checks. This change in the bill seeks to reinforce and clarify the legislative basis for a system that is already in place in administering the ASIC and MSIC system and reflects existing provisions in the aviation act.

This bill will continue to give effect to Australia's international obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. It will also improve the government's ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime.

Importantly, this bill implements one of the government's key strategies in the fight to combat the drug ice. In December last year, the National Ice Taskforce, chaired by Ken Lay APM, released its final report, which made 38 recommendations across five priority areas. One of these recommendations, adopted by the government in its response to the final report, was to continue to protect the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria. This bill will give effect to this element of the government's comprehensive package of action. I commend this bill to the House.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a very brief contribution to this important debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. I reiterate some of the comments made earlier by the member for Kingsford Smith, who I think made a very interesting contribution. The shadow minister has worked so hard in this area for such a long time, and I commend his comments to the House. My colleague the member for Perth, who is now present in the chamber, will now make a contribution to the debate.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do apologise for delaying the House. I thank the member for Adelaide for very kindly stepping in to speak in my absence.

Labor are supporting the thrust of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. I really want to use this debate as an opportunity to raise our deep concern about what is happening with the government's policies on the granting of visas and how this must be compromising safety and security in our ports and in our coastal waters. I find it almost incomprehensible that we could be jumping up and down and talking about the degree of concern that we have about maritime and aviation safety—I will be focusing on the maritime issues today—while at the same time we are opening the floodgates to people coming into this country with very minimal, if any, checks whatsoever.

In their ideological determination to crush the union movement and to crush working conditions for seafarers, the government, led in particular in this area by Minister Michaelia Cash, have been freeing up the introduction of poorly paid foreign workers into Australian coastal waters. We get a great deal of correspondence from seafarers—from mariners down to deckhands—complaining about what they are seeing. They are obviously concerned about their employment levels and their opportunities for employment and the opportunities for younger people to gain experience in the maritime industry, but they are also concerned about this disjunction in safety requirements. They are currently going through a new regime of safety requirements, under which it is no longer sufficient just to carry a maritime security identification card with you. The new regulations require the card to be worn externally, and there are significant penalties if you are found to be walking in a maritime security area without your security card being attached to your person in the regulated way. At one level, we see that the legislation before us today is focused not just on terrorism but on organised crime. Yet, at the same time, as I said, we are seeing a whole new class of foreign workers who are not being scrutinised in that same way, not required to meet these security standards and, at the same time, are being paid appallingly low wages.

We could look to the Australian crews that have now lost their jobs on the freight that goes between Kwinana and Portland for Alcoa, where we carry the bauxite over to Victoria for aluminium smelting, and, likewise, the shipping between Weipa and Gladstone. These were tasks that, until three to six months ago, were done by Australian maritime workers. They are tasks that are now being performed by foreign workers who are working for around US$3 an hour—appallingly low rates of pay. Many of the foreign seafarers who are working on these vessels coming into Australia are reporting to their Australian fellows that they are at sea for over a year. A number of captains and pilots were telling us last night that they are working with foreign crews who are just completely exhausted—Filipinos who have been away from home and at sea for over 380 days.

If we are concerned about organised crime, surely we would think that people who are highly stressed out because of the long time that they have been away from home and are being paid appallingly low wages might be in the very circumstances, the very environment, where they would be ripe to be exploited by organised crime. These vessels could well become the environments where we see organised crime being introduced to, extended in and operating within this country.

It just seems to be, for us, a massive disjunct here. On one hand, we have the desire, the need, the urgency, to deal with organised crime. I have no doubt that we have major problems with organised crime. I have no doubt that our drug laws have enhanced and provided a business model for organised crime for the last hundred years, and so there is no hesitancy on my part or on the part of the opposition to say that we really need to tackle this problem. But what we are doing on the other hand, in opening up and reducing the controls over the people who are coming into our ports and plying trade on our coastal waters, is at complete odds with what the proposed intention of this legislation is. We are bringing more and more people in without any security clearances and we are putting them in very difficult and financially trying circumstances, and again, as I said, we are creating the ecology where organised crime could indeed flourish.

Another factor that we see and another demonstration of this is the sheer number of vessels that are now originating from overseas and plying their trade. There were 7,732 vessels that originated from overseas and plied their trade here in the last six month period and only around 2½ thousand of those, approximately a third of those 7,732 vessels, were actually checked by our officials. That gives you some idea of how big a problem this indeed might be.

We see desertions occurring because of the increased number of vessels and the worsening conditions that are being experienced on these vessels. As international freight rates are going down, we are seeing a very real race to the bottom in international shipping where wages and conditions are declining, and, as a result of that, we are seeing more and more desertions. In the six-month period to December 2015, there were 11 reported desertions from foreign ships in Australia, but, in talking to maritime workers and officers last night, they believe that is a very significant understatement of the number of desertions.

There are a whole range of issues that we could discuss. There are safety ramifications with the ways in which we are allowing untrained workers on these vessels. As I said, because the freight rates are so low internationally, it is a race to the bottom. Ship pilots who are engaged to help steer ships into port are telling us about the incapacity and the lack of knowledge that they are encountering on the part of the captains and crews of these vessels and the fact that these people have been working such long hours that they are exhausted and the fact that they have minimal English and are unable to respond appropriately to the instructions of the pilots. They are seeing now in our ports and in our channels as they are trying to direct these vessels into and out from shore that there are increasing numbers of near misses.

We have a very real problem. It is a problem that has been exacerbated by the absolute obsession of this government to drive down the influence of unions, drive down the conditions for people in the maritime sector and, indeed, drive away jobs. Just looking at the temporary work visas that are being granted, the increase in particular of the use of the 400 visa is quite extraordinary. Those visa numbers went up from just 6,000 in the year 2012-13 to 54,688 in 2014-15. That was a massive jump. Now that we are seeing a pro rata basis for the 400 visa this year we can expect to see around 71,000 of these visas being granted. They are supposedly for skilled workers. We know if the minister gets her way we are going to see no requirements for visas at all. So there will not even be the minimal controls we have at the moment in the issuing of these 400 visas, and special category visas will disappear. We will have absolutely open season. People will be coming and going without us having any knowledge of who they are.

How can you plausibly argue that you are worried about our ports and our airports being used by organised crime when you are actually seeking to completely and utterly deregulate the entry of foreign crews into this country, you are completely and utterly failing to instigate even the most basic and routine checks on ships that are arriving in this country and you are encouraging an employment environment on ships of shame where people are worked extraordinarily long hours for extraordinarily low pay? We are indeed creating all of the conditions that will see organised crime thrive and prosper. The modest measures that we have introduced here are not going to be at all capable of standing up against the ecosphere that we have created in this deregulation of the maritime environment.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to be speaking on this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, that amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, hereafter referred to as the aviation act, and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, hereafter referred to as the maritime act. The purpose of this legislation is to regulate access to secure aviation and maritime areas and zones to safeguard against unlawful interference. The originating legislation had its history in the heightened levels of security concerns that followed the September 11 attacks. That legislation enjoyed bipartisan support across the chamber and this amending legislation continues to do so.

Organised crime is a serious threat to Australia's security and prosperity. There is no contention about that proposition in this place. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as a means to commit organised crimes will not be tolerated. Labor support targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. Sensible measures which are going to minimise this illegal trade and detect perpetrators and bring them to justice are initiatives which Labor will of course support. But there are aspects of this government's policy that touch upon these issues that we will not support. I will have something more to say about what we describe as 'Work Choices on water', because it goes directly to the issues that we are debating in this House today—and that is the security of our borders, particularly our maritime borders.

This legislation rests in part on the recently published recommendations of the National Ice Taskforce, a task force commissioned by the previous Prime Minister. The report was released by the current Prime Minister. The report of the National Ice Taskforce was welcomed by Labor. The report recommended that the Commonwealth government continue to protect the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime. It was particularly concerned with the porosity of our borders and the fact that organised crime gangs are connecting with supply routes through South-East Asia and bringing drugs, not only methamphetamines but also those, through our borders on board ships. In part this is in response to a crackdown on the domestic production of methamphetamines in meth labs in this country. The report recommended that the government strengthen the eligibility criteria for holders of aviation security identification cards and the maritime equivalent, the MSIC. Labor support measures to align and refine the systems. We believe that they are sensible reforms. We must ensure that persons accessing secure areas around airports, ports, aircraft and ships are subject to proper background checks that are appropriately balanced against the risks that we are attempting to mitigate.

I represent a region where there are several hundred men and women who put to sea out of the port of Port Kembla. The livelihood of the region depends, in part, upon the security and the vitality of the port of Port Kembla. We are critically interested in the security and the issues that this bill touches upon. We have a few concerns and we have said that we will not object or oppose this bill in the House. We believe, given the subject matter that it deals with, that it should be subject to a very efficient Senate inquiry if the course of this parliament allows it. The speculation around this building today and over the last couple of days has been frenzied. It may not be allowed to occur because of the early calling of an election—that is entirely within the government's hands—but it is our view that an efficient Senate committee inquiry into the subject matter of this bill is warranted.

We have a few prima facie concerns. The first is that the bill attempts to amend two acts that deal with aviation security and maritime security. This is in an effort to prevent the use of the services in connection with serious and organised crime. We are concerned about the confusion of priorities for transport security. We support a transport security framework that has a clear purpose in its own right. Transport security is a vital mission for government but it is a very different task from that of targeting organised crime in our transport system. The two acts that this bill attempts to amend currently target unlawful interference in the aviation and maritime sectors. As such, the current focus of these acts is on targeting behaviour which may cause harm to passengers, crew, aviation and maritime personnel, the general public, and damage to property.

This is not, however, related to organised crime, which is a new secondary purpose that the government is attempting to insert into these acts. The government hopes to administer this new purpose solely through changes to eligibility criteria for existing aviation, security and Maritime Security Identification Card holders. Labor believes that there is a potential risk in that widening the purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the two missions of, firstly, transport security and, secondly, targeting serious organised crime in the transport system. We rather suspect that the government is alive to this issue given the severance provisions that have been drafted into the bill. They are both important but the question is whether achievement of both is best achieved via the mechanism that the government suggests. We are not an obstacle to these occurring, we just want to ensure that it is done in the best way possible.

I want to talk about the great risk to maritime security that is not being addressed by this legislation. It goes to the government's increased use of flag-of-convenience vessels for the maritime trade plying our coastline. The government is actively encouraging shipowners to sack their Australian crews and to replace the Australian flag—the red ensign—from the back of those Australian owned ships so that they can replace them with a flag of a foreign nation and replace the crew with a crew of a foreign nation. We are calling it 'Work Choices on water’ for very good reason. In fact, the most dangerous place for an Australian flag in Australia today is at the back of an Australian owned vessel. This government is attempting to remove those flags and the Australian crew and to replace them with a foreign crew. What does that have to do with national security? I want to explain exactly what that has to do with national security, because the people that we are talking about, the Australian crew who are working aboard those vessels plying the coastline, who are coming in and out of our ports, are required to be in possession of a Maritime Security Identification Card. They have to go through all of those checks and I can tell you that, if they do not meet those checks, they do not get a card and they do not get a job on board that ship.

It is a tough system but it is a system which is designed to preclude the sorts of criminality that the government is intended on excluding from our maritime trade by the bill before the House today. Let's be clear about this, if you are Australian maritime worker working on one of those boats, you are required to have an MSIC. No card, no job. What is the situation with one of the foreign crew who is working on one of those flag-of-convenience vessels? They are not required to have an MSIC. There is no card requirement for one of those crews.

You have to ask yourself: where are the government's priorities? I want to draw your attention to the provisions, because they are broad, indeed, and could lead to the exclusion of somebody getting an MSIC, because the regulations which are supported by the current legislation have five tiers of exclusion. The highest tier is one that everyone would agree with. It includes offences such as terrorism, treason, foreign incursion, the recruitment offences, offences relating to weapons of mass destruction, and offences and crimes and misdemeanours of a similar sort. People smuggling is also listed as a tier 1 offence. They go through to tier 2 offences, which are slightly less but also serious, of an adverse finding against somebody, for example, if they have been involved in threatening or assaulting persons in or on an aircraft, an airport, a vessel or a port, and the theft of government or commercial aircraft or vessel. You could understand why this is the sort of person who we would not want to be carrying an MSIC. We would not want somebody who has been involved in terrorism or who has been involved in highjacking or somebody who has been involved in a tier 1 offence or even a tier 2 offence. We would not want a person such as this working on a ship, whether it is a foreign owned vessel or an Australian owned vessel coming into our ports, and all the risks that are associated with that.

Tier 5 offences are offences that of course we do not approve of—offences such as theft; forgery or fraud; offences involving sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; assault, including assault of an indecent or sexual nature; affray or riot; and tax evasion. So there are a whole range of offences that could exclude an Australian from having an MSIC and, therefore, from working on board an Australian ship.

If a government is seriously concerned about protecting our borders and ensuring that the crew on board ships—including ships that maybe a couple of months ago were Australian flagged vessels but today are carrying a flag of convenience, the flag of a foreign nation, and the crew of a foreign nation—do not have criminal backgrounds, why would it not make the same rules apply to everyone? You end up scratching your head and saying, 'This does not add up.' But this is exactly what is happening under this legislation and the policies of this government. We call it 'Work Choices on water' for a very good reason: it is driven by a blind ideological agenda to replace Australian crews, including people from my own electorate.

I had the opportunity to catch up with Zach Kinzett, from Shellharbour, in my electorate, and several other shipping workers. He was one of those seafarers who lost their jobs because of the government's policy. He was marched off his ship, the MV Portland, by security guards in the middle of the night. A couple of days later, his entire crew was replaced by foreign seafarers. He makes the point: 'We should have the right to work in our own country. We pay taxes, we buy things in this country, we have a mortgage in this country.' He should have a right to work in this country, under its laws. He cannot for the life of him see why he has been excluded from working on board an Australian owned ship, plying its trade in the ports of Australia, and why the rules that apply to him are different from the rules that apply to these foreign workers.

And it is not just Zach. Joanne Kerin from Kanahooka, who I have spoken about in this House before, lost her job aboard the Alexander Spirit. She and the other 36 Australian crew that she had worked with for many, many years lost their jobs and were replaced by a foreign crew—no warning, no respect, no concern for Australian jobs.

This is a perverse situation, where we have legislation before the House today to beef up the requirements under and expand the objects of the act to ensure that MSICs and ASICs are being provided to people in the right circumstances and in accordance with the legislation, yet somewhere else we have this massive back door, this massive loophole, that the government has created because of its own ideological obsession with pulling down the Australian red ensign flag on the back of Australian ships and replace it with a foreign flag, and replace the Australian crew with a foreign crew. Yes, it might be allowing the shipowners to pay cheaper wages, but it is doing nothing for national security, and that is what the parliament, as we have said today, are very concerned about. These are the issues that should be traversed when and if a Senate committee gets the opportunity to scrutinise this bill. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that there are some great young people in the gallery today. I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016.

There were over three million aircraft movements at Australian airports, with 149 million regular public transport passenger movements through Australian airports, in the year ended December 2015. With such significant numbers of people moving through our airports, the potential for organised crime to take advantage of any gaps is very real. Australia's borders, both maritime and airspace, have been made more secure through significant investment by the coalition government. While the global threat of terrorism is clearly significant, the scourge of organised crime is a very serious issue, and this government is getting on with the job of dealing with it.

This bill implements an election commitment to ensure that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australian airports and seaports. A number of independent reviews, including the 2011 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime, have noted that those involved in serious and organised crime are exploiting secure maritime and aviation areas for criminal purposes.

Under Labor, people with a relevant criminal history were able to get security clearances to work at ports and airports where cargo comes into the country. On some occasions, these people were found to be acting corruptly to help criminals and make smuggling operations easier. An example of the results of organised crime activities at our airports was addressed in December 2015, when the National Ice Taskforce reported a substantial increase in ice imports to Australia in recent years. Over five tonnes of ice were seized at the Australian border between 2010 and 2015. Not only did the task force report that airports and maritime ports are gateways for these imports; it also noted that the growing use of ice in regional Australia must be recognised and appropriately addressed.

In 2013-14 alone, the work of the multiagency task forces targeting criminal exploitation of Australian ports and related supply chain activity at the waterfronts in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane resulted in 56 arrests and the seizure of 138 kilograms of illicit drugs and precursor chemicals, as well as the seizure of 177 tonnes of tobacco and seven firearms.

This bill responds to the National Ice Taskforce recommendation to strengthen the eligibility criteria for the aviation security identification card, or ASIC, and the maritime security identification card, or MSIC. As at 31 December 2015, there were approximately 138,000 ASICs and 118,000 MSICs in use.

This measure also responds to recent cases where people with serious or organised criminal backgrounds have successfully challenged on their eligibility to hold a card. This bill will strengthen the government's ability to tackle the supply of the drug ice, the importation of the chemicals used in its manufacture, and the individuals and criminal gangs or syndicates who traffic them. The parents of Australia are particularly grateful for this. The changes will not remove any of the existing appeal rights, and there will be no additional burden on applicants for an ASIC or MSIC. The current eligibility criteria mitigate the risks of unlawful interference with aviation or maritime transport, and do not include a number of offences relevant to securing our infrastructure and border environments. They fail to consider offences from anti-gang and criminal organisation legislation, illegal importation of goods and interfering with goods under Australian Border Force control.

By anyone's standard, persons with a history of committing these types of offences constitute a risk if given unsupervised access to the secure areas of our transport infrastructure. For example, currently a person convicted of the illegal importation of goods is able to receive an MSIC. The new criteria will address these vulnerabilities. People with serious criminal convictions will no longer be eligible to hold either card. This bill takes a proportionate approach to the application of these new eligibility criteria: Less serious offences will require a longer term of imprisonment to become an aviation or maritime security-relevant offence, while more serious offences will only require conviction. This would mean that a single irresponsible or ill-considered act would not automatically exclude a person from the schemes. The shift in focus from low-level or minor offences to higher risk offences related to serious or organised crime means that more applicants will be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC. This will mean these people will be issued their ASIC or MSIC more quickly, reducing impact on their employment and increasing the staff available to employers. This change will be good for aviation businesses around the country, particularly in regional Australia. Aviation links are a crucial part of bridging the vast distances in Australia, and they have been since 1910 when the first powered flight was made. The potential for aviation in this country has been realised ever since.

Existing cardholders need not be concerned. They are already required to self-report relevant offences. On commencement of these measures all cardholders will be required to self-report against offences in the new eligibility criteria. This is hardly a huge change and the intent to further strengthen our borders is prudent. Cardholders with relevant convictions against the new criteria will have their cards cancelled and will no longer have the ability to work unescorted in the secure areas of ports and airports. If you were talk to passengers, they would tell you they were very pleased about this. All existing appeals processes remain available for applicants. ASIC and MSIC requirements apply to all persons when in secure areas. These are the parts of Australia's air and sea ports that are subject to higher security measures specifically to protect critical or vulnerable aspects of our transport infrastructure—as they should.

I heard the member for Bendigo in her contribution discuss the proposed eligibility criteria for the ASIC and the MSIC. The proposed criteria are set out in the bill and are structured to give the respective agencies maximum flexibility: tier 1, disqualifying offences; tier 2, adverse with any form of conviction; tier 3, adverse with any form of imprisonment; tier 4, adverse with 12 months or more imprisonment; and tier 5, adverse with 30 months or more imprisonment. The new eligibility criteria offer relevant agencies flexibility in managing the ASIC and MSIC scheme, ensuring that there are safeguards against people with a serious criminal background working in sensitive areas of our ports and airports—a very good outcome. The member for Bendigo raised questions about whether the changes in eligibility criteria will prevent union officials or OH&S representatives from accessing airports and ports. She raised these questions in the context of saying that this side of the House was well known to hate unions and uses all means available to break them. I think it is a dreadful shame that the member for Bendigo has injected such spurious suggestions into this debate. It is clear that this legislation is not aimed at union officials or OH&S representatives, and any such suggestion is nonsensical—it is beneath any member of this place to make such a suggestion. It is self-evidently aimed at ensuring the people who work at our airports and ports are people of good character. As the member for Grayndler said earlier, national security should not be a political plaything, and I direct the member for Bendigo to the member for Grayndler's very sound comments. I commend the opposition in a broader sense for supporting this sensible and important legislation.

Organised crime is a serious threat to our national security and is estimated to cost the Australian economy $36 billion a year. We in our electorates frequently see evidence of the impact of serious and organised crime. These amendments deliver on the Australian government's commitment to ensure that people with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australia's airports and seaports. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are designed to protect the aviation and maritime transport systems against acts of terrorism and unlawful interference. If we did not do that, the Australian people would hold us to account for that inaction. These changes will boost our law enforcement agencies' ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime—the very creative sectors that they are—by introducing additional offences to capture high-risk criminal activities. This will mean Australia's airports and seaports are less susceptible to exploitation from serious or organised crime.

As I previously stated, a number of reports have indicated that Australia has become a target for organised criminals from all around the world. Importantly, today's changes will implement the National Ice Taskforce's recommendation to strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes to limit the distribution of ice throughout the community. The new criteria will be applied to new applications and applications by existing ASIC and MSIC card holders from 1 July 2016. Given the issues around ice which exist within our communities, I am very well aware that not only parents but a range of individuals and community groups will be very grateful for any action this government takes to reduce and limit the distribution of ice in the community. This legislation is intent on tackling the impact ice has on families and individuals, the damage it does and the way it ruins lives. I commend this bill, and its intent, to the House.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up, I would like to thank all those who have spoken on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill—the member for Grayndler and the shadow minister, the member for Bendigo, the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Perth, the member for Throsby, as well as the members for Dobell, Parkes, Page, Capricornia and Forrest, whom we have just heard from. I note that the opposition supports the bill and has not moved amendments in the House. This continues the bipartisan support we have had for other security measures in relation to transport.

The purpose of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill is to reduce criminal influence at Australia's airports and seaports by strengthening the Aviation Security Identification Card, or ASIC, and the Maritime Security Identification Card, or MSIC, schemes by amending the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are critical part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors. This bill will prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime by creating an additional purpose in the aviation and maritime acts in relation to access to aviation and maritime areas and zones.

These amendments will provide the regulatory framework to support the introduction of new criteria and harmonise existing criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes to better target serious or organised crime related offences. The revised eligibility criteria will be set out in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003. In addition to the amendments already mentioned, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 will clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders. It will allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across the ASIC and MSIC schemes and by inserting an additional separability provision to provide guidance to courts as to parliament's intention.

The bill will give effect to the government's election commitment to reduce criminal influence at airports and seaports. People with a relevant criminal history can never receive a security clearance to work at Australian airports or seaports. In addition, the bill completes a key action identified in the government's December 2015 response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce to prevent serious and organised crime by strengthening the ASIC and MSIC schemes. I commend this bill to the House.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.