Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That has woken them up. Mr Acting Deputy President, through you: welcome to the debate. It is Labor’s view that maritime security matters should be the responsibility of a minister for homeland security. But this government in its wisdom has chosen to leave maritime security to a succession of National Party transport ministers who clearly have other things to worry about: Mr Katter’s ‘beast’ riding a horse of discontent, for example.

Australian seafarers undergo a rigorous and thorough security check by the Australian Federal Police and by ASIO. They also have to have a maritime security identification card, known as the MSIC card. I want to commend the Maritime Union of Australia for the way in which it has willingly and efficiently cooperated with the government in introducing the maritime identification card system and other very important measures that it undertakes are necessary to secure and protect Australia’s maritime trade.

Despite the indifference displayed by the government, the Maritime Union of Australia, the Transport Workers Union, the Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union forced their way to the table and did their best to save the government from itself and its own ignorance of the maritime, cargo and offshore industries.

The detailed submissions made by these unions show just how important union and worker involvement is in any project to develop and enhance maritime security. To quote Senator O’Brien’s figures and his vast knowledge of this area of Australia’s security, we have 200,000 foreign seafarers coming to our country every year; however, they are not subject to the same rules that apply to Australian seafarers serving on Australian ships. Not only are foreign seafarers denied Australian pay and working conditions; they are not subject to the same security regime as Australian seafarers.

Why aren’t we applying the same standards to foreign crews coming to Australia? If it is good enough for Australians to meet the required tests by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO of being of good character and good background, then surely we should ask the same of those crews coming to Australia, who could cause major terrorism damage to Australia. Why aren’t we prepared to say to foreign crews that we expect them to undergo the same security checks by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO as those which we apply to citizens of Australia? There is no good reason why there should be lesser security checks on foreigners coming into Australia than the security checks we apply to Australian citizens.

We also need to ensure that people who would do harm do not have the opportunity to turn one of those cargo ships into a floating bomb. The Howard government has a record of breaching the navigation regulations and its own ministerial guidelines regulating coastal shipping by failing to establish whether a licensed Australian vessel is available before issuing a single voyage permit to a foreign ship. The government has been quite happy to allow ships of convenience with foreign crews we know nothing about to carry dangerous materials around Australian waters. The Labor Party have made it clear that we think that is wrong.

We have made it clear that ships that come to Australian ports should be obliged to provide the details of their crew and their cargo at least 48 hours before arrival. If they do not, then we should do exactly what the United States does: prevent their entry into our ports.

An independent review of this government’s administration of coastal shipping licences and permits for foreign vessels, undertaken by KPMG for the Department of Transport and Regional Services, provides a damning indictment of just how eager the government is to let these floating coffins move freight in Australian waters. The review found:

One in six permits for foreign vessels were granted without a signed application ... Data relating to one in five permits was incorrect or absent altogether; The Government was in breach of the Navigation Regulations and Ministerial Guidelines on the regulation of coastal shipping by failing to establish if a licensed Australian vessel is available before issuing a permit to a foreign ship.

It is a sad indictment of this government that it has presided over the demise of the Australian coastal trading fleet while giving a leg-up to foreign shipping that uses substandard vessels and engages cheap, foreign labour. I do not think it is enough to just tick off a list that people have put their plans in and rely upon that to secure us, which is what this bill is all about.

We do not know who the crews are on foreign flag of convenience ships. We do not know whether they are subcontracted to al-Qaeda. I reckon we have far more to fear from terrorists than we do from unionised workforces. International maritime security agencies now accept that Osama bin Laden owns a fleet of cargo ships, all flagged under the flag of convenience system. As we know from the Ships of Shame report, this system allows for the evasion of taxation and most other regulated costs. But, more importantly, it provides the beneficial owner with the most effective veil of secrecy available in international trade. In fact, I can hardly think of a way to make Australia more vulnerable to terrorist attack than by permitting foreign ships to sail from port to port without the inconvenience of lodging a signed permit form. As we know from the KPMG audit, that has occurred.

The Howard government’s active undermining of Australia’s shipping industry has been highly successful. Over the last 10 years over half of Australia’s fleet has already been decimated. We are now down to 50 vessels that sail under the Australian flag. Most recently, the chemical carrier MT Stolt was reflagged from Australia to the Cayman Islands and the 18 Australian crew members were sacked and replaced by cheap, foreign seafarers. The owners of the MT Stolt sacked the Australian crew and changed the flag to a flag of convenience, safe in the knowledge that the Howard government hands out single voyage permits like confetti at a wedding. Even though the MT Stolt regularly carries loads of around 9,000 tonnes of sulphuric acid around the Great Barrier Reef, the Howard government is happy to allow the owners to make a few extra bucks profit through the use of cheap, unskilled foreign crew and lower safety requirements.

The result of the Howard government’s continued abuse of the single voyage permit system is that the remaining Australian merchant fleet will be forced to struggle to compete with foreign competition that has lower safety standards and lower wage costs. It is clear from the findings of the audit that the lax administration of foreign ships on the Australian coastal trade places Australia and its citizens at a heightened risk of maritime terrorism.

We have the recent example of the Pancaldo chugging around Australia’s coast loaded with ammonium nitrate. Honourable senators will recognise that ammonium nitrate was the explosive of choice in the Oklahoma bombing. We all remember the horrifying images of the north side of the Murrah Federal Building being torn down by a single car load of ammonium nitrate explosive, with the tragic loss of 168 lives. The Pancaldo was carrying over 3,000 tonnes of the stuff in and out of Australian ports. The Pancaldo sails under the Antiguan flag, which has been listed by the International Transport Workers Federation as a flag of convenience registry where, for a few quiet payments, you can get a ship registered with no questions asked. The MUA were able to discover that most of the crew came from former Soviet republic nations and Eastern European nations. The Australian government had no background knowledge of the crew whatsoever. There were no security checks done on any of the crew.

It is going to take more than this bill and a fridge magnet to fill the gaping holes in our maritime security—but you do not have to take my word for it. In a recent report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Australia’s maritime security, the institute found:

A terrorist attack on Australia’s maritime interests is a credible scenario. Australia still faces major institutional and operational challenges in reducing the risks of maritime terrorism. We haven’t met these challenges fully, and we lack consistency in the response.

According to this authoritative and independent body, the Howard government has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The Howard government proudly boasts that it X-rays about 10 per cent of the containers that come off ships. That leaves about 90 per cent of containers going through unchecked. The odds are pretty good if you want to hide something in a container. The government cannot come before the people of Australia or this parliament and say that it is doing its job when it allows 90 per cent of containers to come through our ports without being checked at all.

If we compare the Howard government’s effort with what is occurring in neighbouring countries, we can see just how slack they are. Hong Kong are trialling new systems with new equipment to X-ray 100 per cent of the cargo in two of their nine terminals. Unfortunately, in Australia, the government are asleep at the helm. There are over 20,000 ship arrivals and more than 3½ million movements of loaded containers in Australia each year. If 90 per cent of these containers go unchecked, there is a lot of opportunity for dangerous items to be smuggled into our country.

The centrepiece of Labor’s maritime security policy is the creation of a coastguard. Government ministers come into the chamber to ridicule Labor’s coastguard policy every chance they can get. The Minister for Defence claims that this is an outrageous policy and a slur on the Royal Australian Navy. It is nothing of the kind. If we had a coastguard, maybe we could enforce the laws that the government wanted and the Labor Party supported that require ships to provide notification, 48 hours before they arrive in port, of who their crew are and what their cargo is.

The functions of a coastguard would be to protect Australia’s coastline from all manner of threat—for instance, illegal immigration, illegal fishing and environmental threats such as oil dumping—and, if necessary, to enforce Australian law with regard to shipping. If we had a coastguard, we could enforce our own shipping laws and protect Australian ports while not diverting the Royal Australian Navy from the important tasks that we have the Navy for. If the Howard government do not want to listen to the Labor Party then they should take the lead from the many countries in the world who understand the difference between the role of a coastguard and the role of a navy.

Far from thinking that the coastguard is a waste of money, the US is currently planning a major expansion and re-equipping of their coastguard to meet the new challenges of the times, including the terrorist threat to US ports and shipping lanes. If Jemaah Islamiah were to fill a Panamanian flagged tanker with ammonium nitrate, hire a Ukrainian crew who spoke no English and who had no idea of where they were or what they were carrying and sail the tanker into Dampier, the requirement that they notify the port authorities of the tanker’s cargo would probably not be enforced and, sadly, we would have no capacity to prevent it from coming into port. Does this government really think it is appropriate that the Royal Australian Navy keep its warships tied up in every Australian port to guard against threats of this kind? That is not what the RAN, with its highly specialised ships, equipment and crews, is trained and funded for. That is the role of a coastguard.

The bill before the Senate today is a small step forward, but a lot more needs to be done. We as a nation deserve better when it comes to our national security and the protection of our maritime borders and points of entry. The carriage of highly dangerous goods, like ammonium nitrate, by foreign ships around our coastline must stop now and the transport of high-consequence dangerous goods around Australian coasts must be done by Australian ships crewed by Australian men and women who are subject to appropriate security screening.

The Howard government’s neglect of shipping policy threatens our economy, threatens our national security and threatens our natural environment. Labor supports this bill, but that should not be taken as an endorsement of this lazy government’s failure to act to protect the security of our seafarers and our port communities or even to enforce the laws that this government itself has passed.

In conclusion, under a Labor government, Australia will have a full-time minister for homeland security, a full-time inspector of transport security, and a full-time professional coastguard.