Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate to the chamber that the government will not be supporting either of these proposed amendments as put forward. The government is committed to strengthening background checking in relation to the first, replacing 'serious or organised' with 'serious and organised'. The government has committed to strengthening background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious or organised crime cannot obtain access to our airports and sea ports. The inclusion of combating serious or organised crime at sea ports and airports into the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 will keep illegal guns and illegal drugs off our streets. 'Serious or organised' is far broader than 'serious and organised' and will capture people with a serious criminal conviction or organised crime conviction or both.

The opposition are wanting to water down this bill with their amendments. Replacing the 'or' with 'and' will mean that people convicted of a serious crime who acted alone will likely be able to successfully appeal the refusal of an ASIC or MSIC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This watering down is a serious issue. For example, an ASIC applicant who had convictions for cultivating and trafficking cannabis and importing cocaine was granted an ASIC by the AAT because even though he had serious criminal convictions, he was not a risk to aviation security. People like this applicant are why we have brought forward this bill. However, this ASIC applicant acted alone when committing these offences, and under the opposition's amendments it is likely that he would still receive an ASIC from the AAT because he did not commit a 'serious and organised' crime. Does the opposition think this is an acceptable outcome, that it is okay for a person to have convictions for serious drug offences, including importation and trafficking, and still receive an ASIC because they committed their offences alone? The government does not consider this to be an acceptable outcome, which is why the bill refers to 'serious or organised'.

This government is committed to keeping Australia safe. Stopping people with a serious criminal conviction or organised crime conviction or both from gaining access to secure areas at airports and sea ports is a crucial part of this. As for the second set of amendments relating to the introduction of an appeals mechanism for ASIC and MSIC decision into the acts, as I indicated the government will not be supporting this amendment. I understand that the opposition has moved this amendment as they are concerned that the appeals mechanism for ASIC and MSIC applicants in the aviation and maritime regulations could be diminished or removed in the future. The government has no plans to diminish the appeal rights for ASIC and MSIC applicants. There is a comprehensive appeals process in the current aviation and maritime regulations and this process is essential to the administrative transparency of the schemes.

The SOC bill actually expands the appeals process for ASIC applicants by providing them with the ability to apply to the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department for reconsideration of a discretionary decision, an ability that already exist for MSIC applicants. There is also an appeal right the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for ASIC and MSIC applicants. Any future changes to the appeals process would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as all changes to regulations are. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel as advised that including the appeals process in the act would not create any practical protection against future changes to the aviation and maritime regulations.