Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to sum up the debate on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 after hearing Labor’s best available big hitters on this occasion, Senators O’Brien, Sterle and Crossin. I will address the bill first and then respond to Labor’s proposed second reading amendment, which the government opposes.

The bill strengthens the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 by simplifying procedures for making changes to maritime, ship and offshore facilities security plans; clarifying the processes in place for the establishment of security zones; shortening the time allowed for the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services to approve security plans; and clarifying when the security plan approval period commences. There are a number of other technical amendments to a wide range of legislation administered within the Transport and Regional Services portfolio. With a handful of exceptions, they are unrelated to transport security matters.

The bill does not propose to vary any of the policy settings underpinning Australia’s maritime security regime. It is merely a procedural bill. The passage of this bill will assist the maritime industry by providing for a simpler process for making minor variations to security plans without undergoing the full plan revision process. The government also wishes to simplify the administrative process for establishing maritime security zones. Consultation undertaken by the Department of Transport and Regional Services with the maritime industry has assisted in developing these amendments, and this bill has the widespread support of the industry.

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee has conducted an inquiry into the bill and, in its report tabled on 15 June this year, has recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. The government looks forward to the passage of the bill within the current sittings of parliament to enable maritime industry participants to focus on implementing and maintaining the security measures outlined in their security plans, contributing to the strengthening of Australia’s maritime security arrangements.

I might address some comments to the Labor Party’s second reading amendment as moved by Senator O’Brien on behalf of the opposition. With respect to pre-entry security reporting and crew reporting, I would comment that, despite Labor’s claim to the contrary, every ship seeking entry to Australia is subject to a comprehensive security risk assessment regardless of the flag that it flies. The security risk assessment takes account of all relevant information about the ship, including the nature of the ship’s cargo and operations, and is independent of customs cargo manifest reporting requirements. Ship and crew reports are required 96 hours in advance of arrival. For voyages under 96 hours, reports are required within shorter time frames. For the shortest voyages, reports are required 12 hours prior to entry. These reporting time frames have been in place since October 2005. Ninety-nine per cent of ships entering Australia have been compliant with ship- and crew-reporting requirements.

Furthermore, all foreign crews are checked before they enter Australia. Foreign crews go through stringent immigration processes, with their names checked against alert lists as soon as the crew list is received in accordance with the existing reporting requirements. This is far different from Labor’s claims that ships arrive in Australian ports having failed to meet crew-reporting requirements. That claim is simply not true. If a ship has not met the pre-entry reporting requirements, the government proactively seeks the information from the ship’s master or agent. If information is not reported within required time frames, ships can be subject to control directions. These may include ordering the ship to leave Australian waters, holding the ship in a particular position until further notice or requiring that particular actions are taken on board the ship. As well as 99 per cent compliance with crew-reporting requirements, 99 per cent of foreign ships seeking entry to Australia have been compliant with the maritime security regime that exists.

With respect to the provision of pre-entry cargo manifest reports, the Australian Customs Service is responsible for clearance of all cargo entering and leaving Australia. Ships are required to provide these reports in accordance with specified reporting time frames. Again, Labor have fiddled the figures regarding compliance with cargo manifest reporting time frames. Their claim of 67 per cent of compliance is based on figures 16 months old and only refers to cargo reports that arrive 48 hours or more prior to a ship’s arrival. As with crew-reporting requirements, that time frame decreases with the voyage’s length. In fact, 83 per cent of sea cargo is reported within the legislated time frames. If cargo is not reported until after arrival, the cargo is not released from Customs control until such time as all required information is provided and the cargo has been risk assessed by Customs.

With respect to dangerous goods and coastal voyage permits, I make the following points. Labor is concerned about the carriage of ammonium nitrate between Australian ports by foreign ships. The government provides that a foreign flagged ship may transport domestic cargo between Australian ports where there is no suitable or adequate ship available to undertake the task. The ships undertaking such voyages are subject to a comprehensive risk assessment. This ensures Australian industry has access to the coastal shipping services it needs to compete with imports and maintains its ability to export into competitive global marketplaces.

Labor’s opposition to using foreign ships to transport ammonium nitrate—even though it is clear that there may not be Australian ships suitable or available for the task—will lead to hundreds of semitrailer loads of ammonium nitrate travelling on the already busy highways of Australia’s east coast. This is surely a far more dangerous outcome than shipping ammonium nitrate by sea. Labor’s objections also ignore the fact that the safety arrangements for the shipping of ammonium nitrate are now regulated internationally by the International Maritime Organisation and Australia is fully complaint with the international regulatory regime that is set up under the IMO. Among other things, the regime prohibits the storage of ammonium nitrate with other volatile products—which led to the explosion on the Grandcamp in Texas City, an incident that happened almost 60 years ago.

With respect to Labor’s comments on homeland security, I make the following points. Proposals for a department of homeland security fail to take account of the fact that Australia has a well-practised national counter-terrorism regime which has been developed over many years on a whole-of-government basis. These arrangements worked well in the aftermath of September 11, the two Bali bombings and the Jakarta, Madrid and London bombings. Our counter-terrorism coordination arrangements have been instructed to reflect our federal system of government—and they are complex. State and territory governments and agencies have primary operational responsibility for dealing with a terrorist incident in their jurisdiction. The Australian government would of course provide support to the state or territory involved, as appropriate.

At the top level of government, the National Security Committee of cabinet, the NSC, meet regularly. There is a clear line of direction from the NSC, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Australian government’s operating departments and agencies. The Prime Minister has created a National Security Division within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to take the lead role in counter-terrorism policy coordination on a whole-of-government basis. The system works well.

Finally, with respect to the need for a coastguard, I make the following points in response to the Labor Party amendments. Border protection duties are already carried out in a highly professional and effective manner by the Joint Offshore Protection Command, the Australian Customs Service, the Australian Defence Force and relevant government agencies through a range of strong capabilities. These capabilities are on the beat 24 hours a day, every day of the year. A coastguard would be an expensive duplication of existing capabilities. A coastguard would also create a new and overlapping bureaucracy and divert resources away from the existing tried and tested arrangements. It is simply not needed and not appropriate in the Australian context.

The government does not support the opposition’s second reading amendments, but I do note that the opposition supports the legislation. I commend the legislation to the Senate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.