Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is not opposing this bill, of course, but when I began this contribution last week I was very critical in my summing-up of the perception of the security levels. One does not argue that we have to make our airports and our ports safe, and as safe as possible in the world we live in today. I was having a fair dinkum crack at the government on some of the nonsense they get up to. This goes back to previous Minister Truss, who is now off enjoying his parliamentary pension wherever he may be, when he introduced the bill to deregister the Australian shipping industry.

The government—ably backed up by their mates the Nats, and no doubt there will be a sprinkling of Independents who will jump in there and give them a hand—have to understand that there are unforeseen consequences. We are not only doing away with Australian jobs, which is just despicable. We are not only opening up the sea lanes for flag-of-convenience vessels. Make no mistake, a lot of the seafarers on those ships, those poor devils, are exploited. So this not a crack against Filipino sailors and seafarers. It is modern-day slavery. It is disgusting. But this government is encouraging it, and it is doing everything it can to see all these Australian jobs go and leave our nation. One of the classic ones was the MV Portland. For crying out loud—they got dragged off their bunks in the middle of the night.

I cannot stress enough to government senators, and government members, how dumb and stupid this idea is, because there is a wealth of experience in our captains, our masters and our engineers—the whole lot. I had the pleasure, which I do regularly, of catching up with my mates from the Australian Maritime Officers Union. If anyone knows their business, it is these guys. They made it very clear to me that I need to share this with the Senate. I was not aware of this, but I am now. I talked about it before we rose last time. When we are at war or whatever it may be in defence of our country—and let us hope we are not—the interface between the merchant navy and the Royal Australian Navy is a cigarette paper's difference. We rely on our merchant navy, our merchant sailors and our merchant seafarers.

Here is a little bit that you lot over there should take a bit of notice of. When there is a warship being built, and we are talking about having a 50-year Navy vessel build here in Australia—and we know all the arguments that have gone on in this chamber, in that other place and in every media outlet, leading into the submarine decision—the Navy cannot take possession of a new warship until it has been commissioned. They cannot operate a warship until it has been commissioned. But new vessels cannot be commissioned until they have undergone sea trials, which identify any issues with the entire vessel's system. So that makes sense. We know that that will not take five minutes and be all over over a cup of tea. This would take whoever knows how long. But, during the sea trials, new vessels are considered commercial vessels and are controlled and operated by civilian merchant seafarers. The RAN will have personnel on board these ships, but it is our merchant sailors, our merchant seamen and our merchant engineers who are the ones who do all the trials.

This blind stupidity coming from that side over there, doing everything they can to appease one or two big companies—because they do not want to pay Australian seafaring wages and conditions—is that they are prepared to tip the whole lot on its ear and proudly wave off Australian jobs. As I said very clearly before, these guys do not get their licences out of a Wheaties packet. They spend years and years learning their trade. Where the hell are our seafarers, our engineers, our skippers, our masters and our captains going to come from? Do you think the Philippines are going to lend us a few? It is absolutely ridiculous.

When we talk about transport security, whether it be ports or airports and all that, it is all very well having the red badge on the ASIC and the MSIC. I get all that. But you have got to be joking: you want to talk up safety and you want to talk up security, yet you are prepared to see all Australian seafaring jobs go. The ships are just about gone, let alone before we start attacking the mob from Broome—those vessels that run up and down the coast that I was talking about when I spoke last week.

So, as much as we are supporting the bill to increase security at our airports, there is absolutely no way—I seem to be going on about this at every opportunity—I am going to let it rest. That mob over there cannot be let off the hook. They want to deregulate Australia's shipping industry and think it is a great idea to have all our vessels sail under flags of convenience, where half the time we do not even know what seafarers are coming in on them. The government can talk a good fight, but that is the truth of the matter. On that, I am finished.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I call your attention to the state of the chamber.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A quorum is required. Ring the bells until quorum is reached.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to cancel the quorum.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the Senate that the standing orders are there to either call attention to the state of the chamber or not. They are not there to buddy up or anything else. This is the second time.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If leave is not issued, that is fine.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted. Cancel the quorum.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and of Australia I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 and to address some important issues relating to aviation safety. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to prevent individuals with links to serious or organised crime gaining access to Australia's airports and ports. This is an important piece of legislation in relation to access to aviation and maritime areas and zones that will help prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious organised crime.

The bill will strengthen the regulatory framework with common eligibility criteria between the Aviation Security Identification Card and Maritime Security Identification Card schemes; clarify the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of Australian Security Identification Card and Maritime Safety Identification Card applicants and holders; allow for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences against new, serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across both schemes; and insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to court as to parliament's intention. The amendments, however, prescribe that the details be set by regulation, and these regulations will be made at a later time, giving the government power to set and alter them as it subsequently sees fit. Regulations will be made under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2035. I note that the bill implements recommendations from the National Ice Taskforce and the parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

While there does seem to be a pattern emerging with this government of legislation that continually seeks to give the state ever greater areas to restrict, control and punish actions not specifically related to the commission of a crime, there clearly are legitimate issues that this bill seeks to address. A significant question here is whether widening the purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the issue of transport security and targeting serious organised crime in the transport system. On balance, it would seem that it does not. A key related issue in regard to aviation security, however, is that Australia currently imposes a more stringent level of access control than that undertaken internationally. This poses significant costs and impediments to those who regularly use airfields. Given that the United States does not consider this necessary, the question must be asked why Australia would take such measures. The government's own Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation in 2014 found that Australian airfield security was already overburdensome, stating: 'Australia is applying a higher level of access control and background checking than is required by the international approach under Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,'—the Chicago convention—'which requires background checking for access to a safe, security restricted area.' The Forsyth review further stated:

the ASIC scheme has a significant regulatory impost on the industry as a whole

…   …   …

without delivering a commensurate security benefit.

The report recommended:

The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas, not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.

Obviously, applying a higher level of access control and background checking than is required or applied internationally does not magically make Australian aviation safer, just more overburdened and bureaucratic. Overly burdensome and bureaucratic: it seems we hear these words more and more. Seemingly it is an affliction creeping its way through more and more areas of Australian life. Perhaps we should call it the Australian disease. Implementing these recommendations of the Forsyth review to align Australia's efforts security regulations with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation would have significant benefits for both recreational and commercial aviation, with no adverse effect on aviation security. Moreover, I understand that this change is widely supported in the aviation sector.

I draw the attention of the Senate to this fact and strongly urge the government to implement the recommendations of the Forsyth review on aviation security without further delay. Overregulation will cost people money with no commensurate benefit. It adds to the cost of business and to the cost of living. Otherwise, One Nation supports this bill.

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

The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 introduces the additional purpose to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 of combating serious organised crime at Australia's airports and sea ports. The ASIC and MSIC schemes are a critical part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors. This bill will prevent the exploitation of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities by individuals with links to serious or organised crime. It will ensure that such persons cannot gain access to their facilities. These amendments will provide for the regulatory framework to support the introduction of new and harmonised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes that better target serious organised crime related offences. The revised eligibility criteria will be set out in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003. In addition to the amendments already mentioned, the bill will clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders, allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, you will be in continuation.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

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

As I was saying, the bill will allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across the ASIC and MSIC schemes and inserting an additional severability provision to provide guidance to a court as to parliament's intention. The bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to strengthen background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious and organised crime cannot gain access to airports or seaports. This will in turn keep illegal guns off our streets and keep our communities safe.

Previously, people with a serious criminal history were able to obtain a security clearance to work at our airports and seaports. This will no longer be possible with the implementation of these legislative amendments. In addition, the bill will also complete a key action identified in the government's December 2015 response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce to prevent serious and organised crime by strengthening the ASIC and MSIC schemes. Organised crime, in particular the importation of illegal drugs, is a serious threat to our nation. These changes are a substantial step forward in the fight to disrupt the distribution of these drugs, including ice.

This bill was previously introduced the House of Representatives on 11 February 2016. It passed the House on 16 March 2016, but lapsed at prorogation on 17 April 2016. Following referral to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in the last parliament, the bill was recommended to progress to the Senate without amendment. The Australian government agrees with this recommendation and thanks the committee for its consideration of this complex issue.

The government does not agree with the recommendations presented by the dissenting report. The revised eligibility criteria, which this bill enables, is the culmination of extensive stakeholder consultation across the aviation and maritime sectors. This consultation concluded that extending the current ASIC and MSIC regimes is more efficient and effective than developing a new and separate scheme to counter serious or organised crime at our airports and ports. The existing ASIC and MSIC schemes are well understood by industry. Introducing a new scheme would likely impose additional costs and lead to confusion and inadvertent noncompliance.

The proposed changes will lift the threshold for less serious and lower level criminal offences. As a result more applicants are expected to be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC, reducing the impact to their employment and increasing the staff available to employers. This bill not only improves the government's ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime, but it also strengthens the schemes existing national security assessment and their ability to protect Australia's airports and ports against acts of terrorism. I urge senators to support the bill to ensure the earliest possible implementation and therefore impact of these vital measures. I thank senators for their contribution to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.