Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1117 revised:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

Before I ask questions of the minister, in particular I want to flag to the chamber that this revised amendment would have the effect of splitting the bill. Effectively, it would allow the chamber to deal with aviation workers without delay but provide time for the government to address the big, gaping hole that sits in this legislation.

The government have provided legislation that purports to deal with the security risks posed by transport workers—not all transport workers of course but those who would seek to use their position to facilitate the importation of drugs and firearms and other illegal activities through our ports and airports. The government have proposed legislation that seeks to enhance security clearances for workers at ports and airports, but they have left a giant, gaping hole. That giant, gaping hole is that the bill does nothing to enhance or strengthen the security clearance process for foreign workers on flag-of-convenience vessels at our maritime ports. This is an issue that was raised previously by the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection and that has been ventilated through Senate inquiries. It is an issue that has been raised multiple times when the government have presented a bill purporting to deal with transport security and organised or serious crime. They did it in 2016, they did it again prior to 2019, and they've got a bill here today that again, for the third time, fails to deal with foreign crew who arrive on flag-of-convenience vessels.

We on this side of the chamber accept that there is a need to deal with the risks posed by organised criminal gangs who have infiltrated airlines and airports. We have seen the revelations in the media about the infiltration. We take with credibility the evidence provided by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission that there are organised criminal gangs that are infiltrating Qantas and that have extraordinarily—from evidence of the ACIC boss, Michael Phelan, on 60 Minutesinfiltrated government agencies. Of course, the community rightly expects this chamber to act upon those reports, so what I make clear to the government and what I make clear to the community is that the Labor Party is seeking to facilitate passage through this parliament of enhanced security checks for aviation workers.

We think the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 proposed by the government is not strong enough. We think the bill proposed by the government has some weaknesses, to be sure. It's a bill that has got the words 'serious crime' in its title, but there's no definition in the bill of 'serious crime'. We think there are issues with this bill because it doesn't have a legislative avenue of appeal. Nonetheless, we are willing to facilitate through the parliament this week the passage of this bill as it relates to aviation workers. Our invitation to the government is—and what this revised amendment represents is an invitation to the government, one I made to the Prime Minister last week, one that I make here today on the floor of the Senate to the government—let's take the time and get it right when it comes to our maritime ports.

What do we know about our maritime ports? We know that our maritime ports are where the great risk lies when it comes to the facilitation of drugs into Australia. We know that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, as it was formerly called, now the Australian Border Force, shared those views with the Senate in 2017. We know that foreign workers on flag-of-convenience vessels can get a security clearance from an Australian maritime port within 24 to 48 hours, but it can take up to three months for an Australian worker to get that same clearance. Why are we putting such stringent requirements on Australian workers but failing to put them on foreign workers? As I outlined in my speech to the Senate when we last addressed this matter, some months ago now when the government last prioritised this bill for debate, we have had multiple incidences of maritime crew from foreign vessels, foreign workers, who have been responsible for or have facilitated the movement of drugs through our maritime ports. This is what this amendment represents, and I invite members of the chamber to have a very close look at it.

In particular, what this amendment does is seek to delay the commencement of the bill as it applies to maritime workers until we have got to a satisfactory proposal from the government or indeed the passage of a private member's bill that I have brought into the Senate to deal with foreign crew from flag-of-convenience vessels. The government may not like the private member's bill that Labor has moved to deal with foreign crew on flag-of convenience-vessels, so I invite the government to come up with their own solution. This is not a political game of 'I have to win, you have to lose'. I think the win that we need here is a win that is in the national interest, is a win that is in the name of stronger border security protection measures and is a win in terms of enhancing security arrangements at our maritime ports.

So I invite the government to consider this amendment. I invite other parties in this chamber to consider this amendment. Now, the government will argue back that the vast majority of maritime crew visa holders do not require unescorted access in maritime security zones. They will say that any seafarer is only required to hold an MSIC if they require unsupervised access to a maritime security zone. They will say that it would impose a significant financial burden on the administration of the scheme for no discernible benefits. But I have to say that if you had listened to the department of immigration in 2017 and if you had listened to the evidence from wharfies and the maritime unions in the Senate inquiries, you would know that foreign crew do not just have unescorted access to ports. They do have unescorted access; any wharfie will tell you that that is the case. The Morrison government have taken their eye off the ball, we contend, when it comes to our ports. We know that foreign crew are allowed to wander around secure areas. My first question to the minister concerns the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's finding in 2017:

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

…   …   …

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

Minister, does the government agree with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's finding?

The CHAIR: I advise the Senate that the revised amendment, on sheet 1117, has been circulated.