Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I start by noting the Democrats’ support for the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 and by concurring generally with Senator Ludwig’s remarks about the outgoing Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Senator Payne. I am not sure that all her colleagues would always think she was representing the coalition’s interests collectively in every action she took, but, much more importantly, she was representing the interests of the Senate, and the public more broadly, and she is widely acknowledged as doing so. That committee is a good example, and one I have often pointed to, of a Senate committee that does the wider job of examining legislation on its merits rather than coming to it from a predetermined political position of an individual political party. I am sure the new chair will follow in the same vein.

As I said, the Democrats support this legislation. It is one case where the terminology ‘strengthening the integrity of Australia’s borders’ is being accurately used because it does actually do that. The phrases ‘border protection’ or ‘border security’ are catch-all, feel-good labels that get attached to a lot of things, in many cases in circumstances where they are not appropriate. Border protection and border security are about knowing who comes into the country and what they might bring in with them, whether it is goods, diseases, pathogens, fire ants or all sorts of things. That is what border security is about. The phrase ‘border protection’ is often used in the context of asylum seekers. But, as the now departed Senator Vanstone used to say sometimes when she was using her capacity for straight talking that many people have acknowledged favourably in recent times, asylum seekers want to be found. They arrive here and say: ‘Here we are; come and get us. Please get our details and listen to us.’ This is completely different from people who come into the country unauthorised—trying to get in without other people being aware of it—and about whom we simply do not have details.

That is really what this legislation goes to—actually having the necessary and accurate processes in place to determine the details of people who are coming here. That is what real border protection and integrity are about. As indicated in Senator Ludwig’s contribution, a lot of these measures have been in the pipeline for a while. The issue more broadly has needed to be identified. If we are talking genuinely about the need to step up the security around who enters the country—an issue that people have looked at more closely following September 2001 and the World Trade Centre attacks—then this is the sort of thing we should be looking at. The fact that we have had so many resources, so much political frenzy and so many legislative changes railroaded through here with regard to people who did not present any border security or border integrity issue at all and so little done in this area where there are issues that need addressing shows how much the government’s priorities are driven by purely partisan and often quite nasty politics rather than by genuine concerns about security.

The current arrangements are that the crew of non-military ships are granted special purpose visas by automatic operation of the law. As part of maritime crew, they do not have to make a specific application for a visa to come here. That process did not and, as it currently exists, does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crew of those ships are allowed to enter Australia. I do not wish to create an impression that they will just waltz in once they get here, but if we are looking at security checks and properly determining the details of people we are letting into the country then this area is not operating as well as possible. Again I contrast that with the asylum seeker issue where every single person is assessed in terms of security and, indeed, much more forensically than just about anybody else that enters this country. Not one of them has had a visa rejected in many years. So it is a reminder of both the importance of security checks and their misdirected focus in many cases.

Even at the height of arrivals of asylum seekers in Australia the numbers were much lower than the numbers of people coming here every year without security checks through maritime crew arrangements. Without in any way wishing to cast aspersions on people who are part of maritime crews, there are obvious security issues with what arrives in Australia in ships through our ports. There are obvious issues just in terms of the goods that come through our ports and how well we are able to oversee that movement. If we are genuine in using terms like border security and border protection and the integrity of our borders then resources need to be directed there, because that is where the real risks are. There are not just the security risks with the people coming in as part of maritime crew but the risks with what they may be bringing in either consciously or, in the case of quarantine related matters, unconsciously.

These reforms are welcome. They will add some extra red tape to maritime crew arrangements and it is important that we get the process flowing as smoothly as possible to minimise any extra disruption that occurs from doing that. On balance, I think it is a necessary disruption for the reasons we have all been outlining, and the Democrats are prepared to support it. It raises the importance of being accurate in our language when we are talking about the integrity of our borders and border security and we need to direct resources to these areas. Frankly, we should stop using terms like border protection when it comes to asylum seekers. They are not a threat; they are simply not a border protection issue. They are always identified and always checked out. There is not an issue there in terms of anything unknown entering into the country.

The security of what comes into our country through our ports is important, whether it is crew, as is dealt with by this legislation, or goods or other things. It is a continual balancing act, as it is through our airports. We know that millions of people enter Australia every year on temporary visas, visitor and tourist visas and the like, and the vast majority of them enter through our airports. You cannot run stringent character checks on every single one of those. I suppose in theory we could, but we would soon find that we would not have millions coming in through our airports; we would have significantly reduced numbers because people would not bother coming here if we had stringent character checks for every person wanting to come here as a tourist. So we have to strike a balance between adequate levels of assessment of people coming into the country versus ease of access, whether we are talking about the tourism industry or any other industries involving the movement of people. Many businesses involve a lot more international travel these days. From an economic point of view, it is very important for people to be able to move around the world as freely as they do within our own country. Rather than putting up unnecessary barriers to people going to different places, seeing different places, experiencing different things and engaging in different activities—whether economic, cultural or anything else—I think that, from a philosophical and what I might call a genuinely ‘liberal’ point of view, we should try ensure as much freedom as possible.

But it is always a matter of balancing those things. This is one area, rightly, where putting some extra security checking arrangement in place would enable that to happen before people arrive here, and it is a necessary change and, in some respects, probably an overdue one. Once it is in place and operating smoothly it will allow these sorts of things to be done in advance and any potential problems to be flagged before people arrive. That is obviously far better than having people arrive and then doing spot checks or in-place checks and then finding a problem. That can cause a lot more hassle for the individual concerned and for the shipping line and the crew than would occur if it were done in advance via security checks. I suspect there will be some teething problems along the way, but once it is bedded down and in place it should operate without major extra inconvenience. Indeed, there might even be reduced inconvenience when problems do arise. It is welcome, although it will obviously need continued monitoring as it is put in place and as the regulations are put down. I am sure that monitoring will occur.