Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

In the first instance, what I propose to do is put on record the government's response to the amendment that has been moved by Senator Keneally on sheet 1117. I acknowledge, Senator Keneally, that there has been an amendment to that particular amendment. In the first instance, the government will not be supporting the amendments to the bill in sheet 1117, which I understand would make the commencement of the bill contingent on the passage and commencement of Senator Keneally's private senator's bill, the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020.

As the government does not support the opposition's bill, making the commencement of this bill contingent on the opposition's bill would mean the important measures in this bill would never commence. The government opposes the opposition's bill because it would be an unnecessary replication of processes already in place for maritime crew visas and lead to additional red tape. Before a person is granted a maritime crew visa, they are required under the current migration legislation to have their criminal history assessed and to undergo a security assessment. Requiring a holder of a maritime crew visa to also satisfy the elements of a maritime security identification card background check concerning criminal history and security would replicate requirements that are already considered in the visa application process. Requiring visa holders to comply with the elements of the MSIC scheme would pose a significant financial burden on the maritime crew visa scheme for no discernible benefit. Maritime crew visa holders who do not hold an MSIC are required to be escorted and monitored by an MSIC holder at all times whilst in a restricted zone of a seaport. Any maritime crew visa holder who requires unescorted access to a secure zone at a seaport would be required, like all individuals, to obtain an MSIC and undergo a full background check.

I will also address the calls by the opposition to split the aviation and maritime sections of the bill. I would say to those calls: serious crime is a major threat to the Australian way of life and causes enormous human suffering. Addressing serious crime only in the aviation sector does not address the wider problem. Of the 227 aviation security identification and maritime security identification cardholders of concern to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, 73 per cent are in the maritime sector. By splitting the bill, the vast majority of the cardholders the ACIC has serious concerns over will continue to have unsupervised access to maritime secure areas.

Kilograms of illicit goods enter Australia through airports, but tonnes—I emphasise that—enter in shipping containers through seaports. We must close all entry points to trusted insiders and serious criminals, not just those in the aviation sector; otherwise, organised criminals will continue to exploit Australia's ports. It will also waste time and money by creating completely unnecessarily red tape. It will increase processing times and costs for cardholders. All the time Labor stalls implementing this legislation, more illicit goods are entering Australia and more people are being harmed. Separating the ASIC and MSIC schemes will also mean that those who require both an aviation security identification card and a maritime security identification card will in future have to apply for two separate background checks, increasing both costs and delays to cardholders.

The other issue that Senator Keneally raised when she was addressing the amendment put by the opposition on sheet 1117, as amended, was in relation to foreign maritime workers. Anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of our airports and seaports needs an aviation security identification card or a maritime security identification card, regardless of their nationality. In making the comments that Senator Keneally did, Labor are deliberately seeking to muddy the waters. There is no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold a maritime security identification card. What this card does is ensure the holder has been background checked and allows the holder to be unescorted inside the maritime security zone.

Foreign ships and foreign seafarers must comply with the security measures of Australian ports and port facilities. Foreign seafarers who are employed on non-military ships on international voyages to Australia will hold a maritime crew visa, otherwise known as an MCV. Like all travellers to Australia, applicants for an MCV are subject to a range of character and security checking processes, and an MCV will not be issued to a person who fails the character test or who is identified as a security risk. If an MCV holder required unmonitored access to a maritime security zone, they would be required, like all individuals, to obtain a maritime security identification card and undergo the required background check. MCV holders are not exempt from MSIC requirements. I'm just seeking some further advice, Senator Keneally, in relation to the question that you posed about why foreign seafarers are excluded from this bill. As I've already stated, there is no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold a maritime security identification card. Maritime industry participants have the discretion to establish maritime security zones to safeguard their operations. At all security regulated ports and on security regulated ships, any person who does not hold a valid MSIC must be continuously monitored by a current MSIC holder at all times while in maritime security zones.

The government has security arrangements in place to monitor all vessels and personnel entering Australia, and a clear protective security regime for ports and ships underpinned by legislation. The security requirements apply to all vessels which enter Australian waters and ports, irrespective of flag state. Foreign flagged vessels entering Australia must demonstrate compliance with international security standards. Foreign flagged vessels and foreign seafarers must also comply with the security measures of Australian ports and port facilities. Security requirements for maritime transport in Australia are separate from shipping registration and coastal trading licences. That is the information I have on me to date.