Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I make one point absolutely crystal clear at the start of this debate: if you are going into a security sensitive part of a port, you need a Maritime Security Identification Card. It does not matter if you are Australian or foreign; you need a Maritime Security Identification Card. The same rule applies to everyone going into security sensitive parts of our ports. There is no discrimination. There's no rule for Australians different from others going to the port. The same rule applies. That's a good thing, and it's a good thing that we've tightened up the requirements around the Maritime Security Identification Cards so that bearers are people of the right character who don't have a criminal history which would indicate that they shouldn't be in those highly security sensitive areas. It's fit and proper that we have those checks and balances and make sure we control who goes into security sensitive parts of our ports.

I'd like to make some preliminary comments in relation to the maritime industry as to this bill. My first point is: the wellbeing of our seafarers should be paramount, whether they are domestic or international. At this time of the COVID-19 pandemic, many seafarers are doing it tough—doing it extremely tough. This is particularly the case with respect to crew who haven't been able to change out of vessels. There are crews on international vessels who have been on those vessels for over 12 months—13 months, 14 months, 15 months. I think it's incumbent upon countries like Australia and other countries around the world to seek solutions to that, because that's unacceptable. It's unacceptable that seafarers should be in that position.

The second point I want to make is in relation to the Ships of shame inquiry that was made in 1992. I commend the chair of that inquiry, Peter Morris MHR MP—who was on the other side, I must say. That inquiry did absolutely vital work in terms of shining a bright light on some of the disgraceful conditions on the flags-of-convenience vessels that were referred to as 'ships of shame'. Examples of unseaworthy ships, poorly trained crews, beatings of sailors by ships' officers, sexual abuse of young sailors, crews being starved of food—terrible things—were uncovered in that Ships of shame inquiry.

And what do we see today? I call upon all members to have a look at the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's 'Focus areas for 2021-22', and you will find that 'Focus area 2' is on breaches of the Maritime Labour Convention. This is in 2021-22, after we had the Ships of shame inquiry back in 1992. Thirty years later, this is still an issue. I quote from AMSA's document:

Data suggests seafarer's welfare continues to be compromised with serious breaches of the MLC found on board vessels. In 2020, there was a 46% increase in MLC deficiencies issued during port state control inspections from the previous year.

That's a 46 per cent increase in Maritime Labour Convention deficiencies on a year-on-year basis. Issue 2, which AMSA is looking at, is the maximum continuous service on board. It states:

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 has been particularly challenging with the number of complaints relating to repatriation showing a substantial increase compared to previous years. While from early 2021 there has been a reduction in the number of seafarers serving on board vessels for more than 11 months, we will continue to monitor this situation and enforce the maximum continuous service on board limits in accordance with the convention.

I really do commend AMSA's focus on this issue in relation to the Maritime Labour Convention.

I commend all those great Australians who are working in our missions providing support to seafarers. I can give you just one example from my home state of Queensland. The average number of seafarers coming into the port of Gladstone each year is approximately 60,000. Usually, 16,000 of those seafarers would seek assistance from the Gladstone Mission to Seafarers. At this time of COVID that has fallen to 6,000, but it doesn't mean the issues are any less serious. I spoke about the changing crew issue during these COVID times. The general manager of the Mission to Seafarers in Gladstone, Jessica Mulhall, said:

They're suffering extreme mental health [issues] and really difficult conditions for them to be in for 15 and 16 months at a time now.

She is shining a bright light on the huge pressures that are on our international seafarers at this time. All governments, all over the world, need to work very hard in order to address those issues.

The second issue I wanted to touch on in relation to maritime matters—and I think it's important to provide context to this debate—is the state of Australia's maritime industry. When I was a very young lawyer working in the legal department of Mount Isa Mines Ltd I was proud to be involved in the construction of a vessel known as MV Aburri. This self-discharging and self-loading vessel was designed right here in Australia, in my home state of Queensland, and constructed in Cairns by NQEA. That vessel is still working up in the gulf, taking zinc-lead-silver concentrate from the McArthur River Mine out to a deep-sea anchorage point. That vessel was designed and constructed right here in Australia. I pay tribute to everyone who was involved in that, including my good friend and naval architect Stuart Ballantyne and Don Fry of NQEA.

The question we have to ask ourselves is, 'Why aren't we designing and constructing more ocean-going vessels in this country?' What are the impediments? Then we need to ask ourselves, 'Why don't we have more merchant vessels flying under Australian flags?' I listened to Senator Sheldon's contribution to this debate, and he made the point that over a period of 30 years the number of Australian flagged vessels has fallen from 100 to 13. That is a calamitous fall. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to reflect on that change in circumstances, especially at a geopolitical time when this country needs sovereign capacity and capability.

It's in that context that we are considering this private senator's bill. I am speaking against this bill, and there are, essentially, three reasons for that. The first reason is it seems to draw a link between this bill—this new class of visa—and the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020, which has now been passed. I can understand that some of those opposite have concerns as to whether or not the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill provided sufficient protection with respect to workers who might be impacted by the added obligations and requirements for the maritime security identification card.

That is a matter upon which we can have a reasonable debate. I'm on the other side of that debate. I sit on the two scrutiny committees of this place. We looked at the regulations and the act, and I—and I won't speak for the rest of the committee—considered that the checks and balances in that act were appropriate and provided enough protection for people and their rights while at the same time provided the safeguards at our ports that are necessary to address the very fact that Senator Brown just pointed out in her contribution—that there is so much illegal trade occurring through our ports.

We have to make sure that the right people, after they've gone through character and criminal background checks, are in the security sensitive parts of our ports. That's what the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill was all about. I'm glad it was passed and it is now law. I query whether the argument put forward by those opposite is genuinely about visas or is really about trying to put hurdles in the way of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill. It would assist this place if those opposite were more transparent with their real objective in terms of this bill.

The second issue I have with the bill—and I made this clear in my opening statement—is that every single person who goes unescorted into a security sensitive part of an Australian port must have a maritime security identification card. It does not matter if they're Australian or international, the same rule applies, as it should. The issue with what those opposite are presenting is that an international crew member who never goes into those security sensitive parts of our ports except when escorted—maybe on their way to shore leave—would be required to go through the same process. This would apply even if they were working in the galley or have some role that doesn't require them to go unescorted into those security sensitive parts of our ports. Why the duplication? Why the inefficiency? Where is the logic in that? That has not been explained adequately by those putting forward this private senator's bill.

We essentially have three reasons why this bill doesn't warrant support in this place. Firstly, there is the unnecessary duplication. Those international seafarers who need to have access to the security sensitive parts of our ports already need a maritime security identification card and go through a visa process as well. So there's absolutely no justification to duplicate the process and the system and require others to incur the costs involved in that.

Secondly, there is the inefficiency. We should be focusing our resources, our security checks and character tests on the most sensitive individuals who are going into our ports. We shouldn't be wasting time and money by duplicating procedures and focusing on those who aren't going into security sensitive parts of our ports.

Thirdly, this bill is all mixed up. It's connected with—and I would argue that this is the whole basis for it being put forward—the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill. This bill was proposed by those opposite to place a hurdle in front of the commencement of the other bill. The bill is not very long. I read the bill last night and I can tell you that the one paragraph that leaps out to you says that the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill can't commence unless this bill is passed. Those opposite know that this bill wouldn't get the support in the lower house, so this bill is all about putting a hurdle in the way of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill.

As I said, it's fine to have a reasonable debate about the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill, but I think it demeans the whole process of having a private senator's bill when you come into this place and present a bill not on the basis of its own merits but with the not well hidden agenda of it being a hurdle to the implementation of another piece of legislation—in this case, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill.

Debate interrupted.