Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By leave—as has been circulated on the grey, I move opposition amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8060:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Serious or Organised", substitute "Serious and Organised".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 15), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 18), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 22), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".

(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 25 and 26), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 4), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

Amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) change the phrase 'serious or organised' crime to 'serious and organised' crime throughout the bill. It is a uniform change and will impact the aviation and maritime bills in exactly the same manner. It is important that we get the language right when we are adding new purposes to important legislation. We need to ensure that we are targeting identified problems in a precise manner.

As Labor members in this place said in the last parliament when an identical bill was put forward, we are concerned that the mission of transport security remains tightly focused around managing the post-9/11 security environment. Currently that is about safeguarding unlawful interference at our regulated airports and seaports, and really focuses on terror-related activity. That is the purpose of this legislation.

These amendments are intended to widen that purpose to include targeting serious criminality which may not be unlawful interference of a terrorist type. While serious criminality should be targeted, it is a different focus to terrorism and, hence, this bill. While Labor will not oppose the widened purpose, it is important that it reflects expert opinion and directs resources to the defined problem. That is the problem with what the government has done here. Somehow the problem has changed from 'serious and organised' crime to 'serious or organised' crime. Labor believes we should follow the experts. The government refers to the Ice Taskforce report and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report of 2011 as the basis of this bill, but they and others always refer to 'serious and organised' crime. For instance, the Ice Taskforce report uniformly talks about targeting 'serious and organised' crime. The Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures always refers to 'serious and organised' crime. This is something that the current Minister for Justice should recall, as he was a member of the joint committee at the time. Indeed, the committee recommended the following:

The committee recommends that the scope of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 be widened to include serious and organised crime in addition to terrorist activity and unlawful interference.

This is what the bill seeks to do, but with a less precise definition. The Attorney-General's Department submission on the bill in the previous parliament uniformly talked about targeting serious and organised crime. The law enforcement agencies almost always use 'serious and organised' crime. If you have a look at the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, that is what you will see.

The Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, which Labor supported last year, also referred to 'serious and organised' crime. Indeed, the Senate report on this very bill uniformly talks about targeting 'serious and organised' crime. Despite the use of 'or' throughout, this is never explained. Only the bill itself uniformly talks about targeting 'serious or organised' crime. Even the department's 2015-16 annual report, tabled in the house on 7 November last year, refers to this legislation as targeting 'serious and organised' crime. You will see that on page 30. For reasons of keeping a proper focus, Labor's amendments will extend the purpose and specification of the offences in this bill to 'serious and organised' crime. In the draft regulation, which will specify offences requiring consideration when issuing ASICs and MSICs, we expect that this revised definition will better focus resources.

I would also like to make some comments about the group 2 amendments (7) and (12). The second group of amendments, comprising (7) and (12), will be put in place on a legislative basis for existing review mechanisms. As part of the change package, the government is proposing to harmonise what are currently different appeal systems for the ASIC and the MSIC. ASIC cardholders will have a clearer system of review rights, one equivalent to the existing MSIC system. The amendments will retain the new uniformity between the maritime and aviation systems.

About one-quarter of one million Australians have an ASIC or an MSIC card. For many, the access that those cards provide is crucial to their employment and their livelihood. The amendments will require regulations made after this bill is passed into law to contain a review mechanism that either already exists or is proposed by the government as part of the harmonisation. Inserting into the respective maritime and aviation security acts a requirement for regulations to include a review mechanism provides an extra level of assurance that the system will include reviews when an adverse finding is made.

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

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

The Greens will be supporting both sets of Labor amendments. The Greens are committed to safety in our ports and airports, but we believe that extra security measures need to be commensurate and proportionate. In particular, we feel that the measures that are being proposed in this bill are appropriate if they related to 'serious and organised crime', whereas 'serious or organised crime' is setting the bar too low. I note that throughout the minister's second reading speech she referred to 'serious and organised crime'. As Senator Farrell has already pointed out, in all other discussions about this bill the discussion and the debate has been about 'serious and organised crime'. The issue is that, by setting the bar too high, there are going to be many workers who currently are able to work at our ports and airports who maybe denied a MSIC or an ASIC card. Whilst we are committed to safety and want to make sure that the people working in our ports and airports have got the appropriate security checks and are going to be maintaining and non-impacting upon the safety of our airports and ports, we feel that the measures in the bill under a category of 'serious and organised crime' are a level that is appropriate.

This is particularly the case given that we know there is no point on really drilling down and applying incredibly punitive measures upon workers who work in our ports and airports when there are so many other gaping holes in the security of our ports and airports. We have people working in yards just outside of the secure areas who do not have to have these security measures. We have people working up in offices in our cities who are the real people who are planning terrorism attacks, importing drugs or things like that. It is not the people actually working at the ports and the airports. There are no measures addressing those people. In particular, we have got the massive gaps because of foreign seafarers on flags-of-convenience vessels, who in many instances are able to just leave and enter our ports at will without the checks being imposed upon them that are imposed upon Australian workers through the maritime and airport security measures.

For that reason, we feel that we need to get the balance right. Safety and security are very important, but so is the ability to work on our ports and airports by hardworking Australian workers. We feel that the amendments that the Labor Party are proposing are worthy of support for that reason, because they are much closer to getting that balance right and making sure that we are not punitively attacking workers in what may just be a false hope and just providing a veneer of taking action in terms of making our ports more secure.

With the second lot of amendments that the Labor Party have moved, in terms of setting up and making sure that there is a really robust appeals process for people who were denied a MSIC or an ASIC card, we also think that is a very important amendment that is very worthy of support. It is that check and that balance to make sure that we are not just attacking the ability of workers who may have had some history in the past, who may have served their time and who are now being denied the ability to work in our ports and airports. There has to be justice for those workers. If they are denied a MSIC or an ASIC, the appeals process has got to be robust to make sure that they are able to continue to work in our ports and airports.

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

I think it is important to clarify for the Senate that ASIC and MSIC requirements apply to all persons when in secure areas. Secure areas are those parts of Australia's air and sea ports that are subject to higher security measures to protect the most critical or vulnerable aspects of our transport infrastructure. Not all areas of an airport, port or ship are declared a secure area. If someone who does not have an ASIC or MSIC requires access to a secure zone, they must be escorted or continually monitored at all times by an ASIC or MSIC holder.

The senator referred to foreign seafarers. I can indicate that foreign seafarers who are employed on non-military ships on international voyages to Australia will hold a maritime crew visa, or an MCV. Applicants for a MCV must be offshore when applying for their fees are. In this regard, the MCV improves Australia's security by providing a level of advance notice of persons seeking to come to Australia on a commercial vessel. Like all travellers to Australia, applicants for a 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 a security risk.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I intend to support Labor's amendments. This bill allows the government to prevent private sector operators at airports and ports from employing former criminals. That is, preventing people who have served their time and served their sentences from working at an airport or shipping port, even when the government does not consider their employment to be a threat to aviation or maritime transport. That is a blanket ban that is imposed in the hope that some future crime may be prevented. It is lazy legislating and it encourages poor policing.

We should not be quick to adopt job killing legislation, and that is what this is. The criminals who have served their time and completed their sentences have a hell of a time finding a job. If they do not find a job, they are on welfare; they are paid for by other people. The jobs that they might be involved in are not necessarily all that skilled. They might be unloading luggage, fuelling aircraft, sweeping the floor or cleaning toilets. The purported purpose of this legislation originally was a terrorist objective. It has gone way beyond that. It is a job killing bill and for that reason I do not support it.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I want to go straight to the Parliamentary Library research and reports on this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, which make some concerning comments about organised crime in Australia, and I quote:

Criminal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have also identified risks presented by ‘trusted insiders’ within the civil aviation sector in relation to organised crime, including the importation or exportation of illicit drugs, domestic drug trafficking, money laundering, and smuggling activities.

This bill, by its very existence in this parliament, says to the people of Australia, 'We have one hell of a big problem with organised crime.' The big problem I have with the approach this government has to organised crime is this: are we doing enough? This bill, which I will support, while its purpose and effects will help in the fight against the threat of serious and organised crime, may be seen as just tinkering at the edges of the organised crime problem in Australia when compared with legislation which could be presented to this parliament.

This leads me to some very serious and important questions. Why won't the Liberal, Labor and National parties support national legislation which makes it illegal to be a member of an organised crime organisation? And why is it being left up to the states to approach this very real problem of organised crime in an ad hoc, very unorganised, fashion? If this government can bring to the federal parliament this and other similar legislation, which a federal parliamentary committee says 'addresses a threat which serious and organised crime poses to Australian transport infrastructure,' why can't the same government bring forward legislation which does a proper job on organised crime? Once again, this is half-hearted.

While this chamber ponders that question, I will briefly turn to the independent Library report, which indicates that:

In a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into airport and aviation security in January 2015, ASIO stated, 'We expect civilian aviation will remain a high-value terrorist target for the foreseeable future'. It identified several factors that make airports susceptible to terrorist attack, including that 'terrorists have exploited the trusted access of individuals within the aviation sector in order to overcome security measures'. Criminal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have also identified risks presented by 'trusted insiders' within the civil aviation sector in relation to organised crime, including the importation or exportation of illicit drugs, domestic drug trafficking, money laundering, and smuggling activities.

While I accept that the legislation will help in the fight against organised crime and attacks by terrorists, what about the police and public servants who are at the pointy end of the terrorism and organised crime threat? I would like senators to spend a little time today reflecting on the plight of the men and women who willingly put their lives on the line while they attempt to enforce this Liberal-National party government legislation? Is this coalition government properly supporting those brave men and women of the Australian Federal Police and other Australian security agencies, who kiss goodbye to their families, not knowing if they will return back home to their family in one piece?

In light of recent media stories, it is clear not only that the coalition has failed to practically support members of our federal law enforcement but also that there is a strong case to show that Liberal and National members of this parliament have sneakily betrayed officers of the Australian Federal Police and their families. In fact, while the conservative politicians make grand speeches in this place about this and other legislation which strengthens our terrorism and organised crime laws, they have been caught out weakening the resourcing and staffing levels of the public servants who are tasked with enforcing these laws. Shame on them! It is well known that this government has deliberately set out to cut the budgets, resources and wages of our very own Australian Federal Police officers. This well-documented attempt at betrayal comes at a time when it is not a matter of if a terrorist attack happens but when it happens. You would think that at some point common sense or a love for Australia would kick in for those in executive government who think that it is okay to take resources away from the Australian Federal Police and other government agencies.

I was approached by members of the Australian Federal Police and also family members of Australian Federal Police officers. The information I was given by the Australian Federal Police Association allowed me to table and have the Senate pass last year the following notice of motion, in which I moved:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Australian Federal Police Association warns that:

  (i) the 2015-16 Budget Papers indicate the Australian Federal Police's (AFP) fiscal position through the forward estimates will deteriorate to the tune of $112 million,

  (ii) as an operational agency, the brunt of this deterioration will be borne within employee ranks, with funds available for employee benefits reducing by $61 million,

  (iii) by straight division, this represents a reduction of 450 staff, though the actual number will be higher,

  (iv) enterprise bargaining is currently underway in the AFP, with employees being unable to sacrifice sufficient terms and conditions to fully offset the $94 million cost of delivering a two per cent per annum salary increase over a three-year agreement,

  (v) the consequence of this will be a further reduction in staffing numbers, by perhaps as many as an additional 400 to offset the cost, and

  (vi) in total, the AFP is confronting a situation where up to 1,000 employees could be lost through budgetary deterioration and enterprise bargaining; and

(b) calls on the Government to identify which operational outcomes will no longer be required as the AFP cannot deliver business as usual into the future in this environment.

According to reliable sources, when this notice of motion passed the Senate last year, the justice minister became very, very angry. He and his conservative colleague's betrayal of Australian Federal Police officers was exposed and made public.

Just before Xmas last year I was contacted by a very distressed person associated with an Australian Federal Police officer and I wrote the following to the Prime Minister on this person's behalf:

Dear Prime Minister

RE: Government Budget Cuts to AFP—High Volume Composite Removal from 2017-20 EA

I would like to bring to your attention the attached disturbing letter I received from a spouse of an AFP officer.

You will note in the letter that the above-mentioned removal of the High Volume Composite and accompanying reduction in wages and conditions is reported to affect around 280 members within the AFP and could result in a cut of up to 35% and $40K p/a for certain AFP members.

At a time when our National Security alert is at high, I am very disappointed that your Government through the enterprise bargaining process, seems to have placed this sort of extreme financial pressure on AFP officers, who are tasked with protecting our borders and the lives of all Australians.

I also note your public comments following yesterday's horrific terrorist attack in Germany.

'Australia's police and security forces were the finest in the world and keenly focused on keeping Australians safe.' (source Sky News)

If you truly believe those words, then I would expect you to do everything in your power to protect Australia's finest police officers and security forces from unfair and dangerous cuts to their pay and conditions.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have been asked by AFP officers and/or their families to raise their concerns in the Senate. Should this report be accurate—and a significant reduction in AFP wages is being proposed just before Christmas, it will mean that your Government is behaving in a shifty and heartless manner.

I know that you personally are the opposite of shifty and heartless. So I ask that you please ensure that these matters raised by the family of an AFP officer are properly investigated and remedied as soon as possible.

I look forward to your favourable response by return.

Yours Faithfully and Merry Christmas

Senator Jacqui Lambie

I call on the minister and the PM to give an ironclad guarantee that the cuts in the Australia Federal Police budget, wages and staffing, and capacity to combat terrorists and organised crime, will stop now.

The reduction in Australian Federal Police resources has already been felt in Tasmania. In a local media article published 21 October 2014 and headlined 'Australian Federal Police officers withdraw from Hobart Airport' read:

Australian Federal Police officers have officially withdrawn from Hobart Airport.

The decision to remove 27 federal police officers from the airport came after a $22 million budget cut was announced in the May federal budget.

…      …   …

Hobart is now the only capital city airport in Australia without a permanent AFP presence.

Following that article, the media revealed last year on 5 July:

The Hobart International Airport is "almost open slather" for drug smugglers, because of the lack of an Australian Federal Police (AFP) presence, a police union spokeswoman says.

The article goes on to reveal:

On Friday a random search by local police with a drug detection dog found $250,000 worth of the drug "ice" on a passenger.

Joseph Roy Wallner, 21, allegedly had 280 grams of ice hidden in his underwear.

Federal police were removed from the Hobart Airport in October 2014, after a $22 million Commonwealth budget cut.

The State Government, Tasmania Police, ASIO and police unions all opposed the withdrawal.

The head of the Australian Federal Police Association (AFPA), Angela Smith, said Tasmania had become a soft target for drug smugglers and she called for the federal officers to be reinstated.

"It is the only airport that doesn't have AFP full-time protection presence there, I guess it's almost open slather for these things to occur and its creating problems for the Tasmanian community," she said.

And my goodness, is it causing issues!

Pat Allen from the Police Association of Tasmania, who previously worked as part of the Australian Federal Police contingent at the airport, is quoted as saying:

They say that the AFP is concentrating on terrorism, well that's great and so they should, but we'd be fools to believe there haven't been people on the terrorism watch-list traced in and out of Tasmania.

The article also said:

Mr Allen said the state did not have the resources to properly police the airport.

"You rely on calls from the airport or the odd operation or two but you know, I fly in and out of the airport all the time and I've hardly ever seen a Tasmania Police officer actually down there," he said.

"Our members do a great job trying to stem the flow of ice into the state."

This bill and other similar bills are designed to strengthen our security at our airports and seaports. A simple step that this government could have taken to achieve the same aim is to tighten up on the issuing of the 457 foreign work visas. From my conversations with Australian port workers, it is clear that radicalised foreign workers in our seaports and airports are a grave security risk. Sacked Australian maritime engineers Stephen Dalton and Adrian Morris have explained to me how overseas maritime workers, because of a complete lack of security checks, pose a significant security threat to cruise liners refuelling in Sydney Harbour. Sacked Australian maritime engineer Adrian Morris said to me:

Foreign worker comes in from overseas … we don't know where he came from. We don't know what his credentials are or who he associates with. You bring in a foreign worker who becomes radicalised … and you've got a fuel barge on Sydney Harbour tied up next to a cruise ship … there's a significant risk factor.

We know that the government, for political reasons, wants to attack the union movement and undermine wages and conditions by letting in as many foreign workers on 457 and other work visas, who do not have to submit to the same level of security checks as Australians. It is a ridiculous situation. National security has been placed at risk because the government allows foreign workers access to our vital trade infrastructure, all because they do not like unions and want to lessen wages and working conditions of Australian unions.

I hope that this legislation helps correct this situation. I also hope that all sides of this parliament seriously consider supporting legislation which attacks organised crime from a national perspective and makes it illegal in Australia to belong to an organised criminal group. And let's not make the same mistake that Campbell Newman made and allow politicians and public servants to draw up a list of groups that they said were organised criminals. That is not a decision for politicians and public servants; that is a decision for the courts after the police produce evidence which proves certain organisations are organised criminals. It is as simple as that. That way the separation of powers is always protected, and basic democratic freedoms and rights are also protected. I support this legislation.

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 is just one aspect of the government's work to reduce serious or organised crime in our community. We are tackling the supply of drugs through increased international cooperation, enhanced intelligence sharing, better controls of precursor chemicals and greater efforts to prevent, for example, ice reaching our regional and remote communities. I do note Senator Lambie's very real concern in relation to ice—indeed, we have discussed that previously. I think it just indicates the importance of the changes that we are looking to bring when we look at ice. The National Ice Taskforce reported that the weight of ice seized at the Australian border grew almost 60 times between 2010 and 2014.

I was very closely involved—as one of the ministers at the time—with Minister Keenan in bringing forward the package of almost $300 million to deal with the ever-increasing presence and negative effect that ice is having on our community. Already this year there has been a large seizure at a port of almost 600 kilograms of ice. The taskforce found that serious and organised crime groups may target trusted insiders working in airports and seaports to help facilitate the movement of illicit drugs and avoid law enforcement intervention. These findings by the National Ice Taskforce are why the government is acting to strengthen the ASIC and MSIC schemes. We are absolutely committed to keeping Australia safe. The legislation we have here before us is entirely appropriate for moving towards doing everything we can to ensure that we keep Australia safe.

In relation to Senator Leyonhjelm's commentary around employment: overall, the proposed eligibility criteria is expected to provide positive employment outcomes across the ASIC and MSIC schemes. The shift in focus from low-level or minor offences to high-risk offences related to serious or organised crime means that more applicants are expected to be found initially eligible for an ASIC or an MSIC. This will mean these people may be issued their ASIC or MSIC more quickly, reducing the impact to their employment and increasing the staff available to employers.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We appreciate the support of the Greens and Senator Leyonhjelm in this regard. I just listened to the minister's address and noticed that, when she was describing this bill, she used the term 'serious and organised crime'. I am happy if you want to have another look at that. Those were the words that the minister used. I am sure she did not mistakenly use those words. She was doing something quite deliberate.

All we on this side of the chamber are asking—and there is significant support for our amendments, Minister—is that she pick up the words she herself used just a few moments ago. I ask that the minister reconsider their opposition to our amendments, particularly in light of the comments that she herself has just made, and support the amendments that, obviously, have widespread support in the chamber.

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

The senator may not be as aware of the task force report as others are. That was the language indeed used at the time, but the intent was very clear: that it was serious and organised crime being considered as two separate things. I was merely reflecting the language used at the time. The indication, of course, was that those two things are indeed separate.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) on sheet 8060 by leave moved together be agreed to.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (7) and (12) on sheet 8060 together:

(7) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 4, insert:

4A At the end of Part 9

  Add:

126A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, under any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to an area or zone:

  (a) section 35;

  (b) section 36;

  (c) section 36A;

  (d) section 37;

  (e) section 38;

  (f) section 38A;

  (g) section 38AB.

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

  (a) reconsideration by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

  (b) review by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

  (c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

  (a) the Secretary or the Secretary AGD to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

  (b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

  adverse security assessment and qualified security assessment have the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

  Secretary AGD means the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007 (the AusCheck scheme).

(12) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 19), after item 12, insert:

12A At the end of Part 12

  Add:

201A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, under any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to a zone:

  (a) section 105;

  (b) section 109;

  (c) section 113;

  (d) section 113D;

  (e) section 113F.

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

  (a) reconsideration by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

  (b) review by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

  (a) the Secretary or the Secretary AGD to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

  (b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

  adverse security assessment and qualified security assessment have the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

  Secretary AGD means the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007 (the AusCheck scheme).

I do not think I need to say anything more, but I would ask the government, in light of the previous vote, to reconsider their position and perhaps accept that they have misread the situation. They should now reconsider their opposition and support our amendments.

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

For brevity, I can indicate that the government is opposed to these amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments to schedule 1, amendments (7) and (12) on sheet 8060, be agreed to.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8067 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 17), at the end of section 38AB, add:

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), offences which consist of the following are not serious or organised crime unless the offence is connected to terrorism:

  (a) being a member of a particular organisation;

  (b) consorting with a convicted offender.

(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 19), at the end of section 113F, add:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), offences which consist of the following are not serious or organised crime unless the offence is connected to terrorism:

  (a) being a member of a particular organisation;

  (b) consorting with a convicted offender.

If this bill should pass and these amendments not be passed, the ban on employing people should not cover those ex-criminals whose conviction was solely for a nonterrorist crime of association. Having been a member of a bikie gang or having regularly visited a friend in prison should not forever block your prospects of cleaning toilets or unloading luggage at an airport or port. I commend the amendments.

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

The government will not be supporting the proposed amendments from Senator Leyonhjelm. The existing ASIC and MSIC schemes protect against unlawful interference with aviation and maritime transport and offshore facilities. The purpose of the bill is to broaden the ASIC and MSIC schemes to also capture persons convicted of serious or organised crime offences, to improve the government's ability to combat serious or organised crime. Limiting any serious or organised crime offences to a connection with terrorism minimises the improvement to the ASIC and MSIC schemes. It prevents the government from implementing the recommendations of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the National Ice Taskforce to address serious or organised crime in the aviation and maritime sectors.

The various Australian criminal codes and organised-crime-specific legislation define concepts of 'unlawful or criminal organisation' by reference to serious violence and criminal activity and not in relation to terrorism. These offences have been enacted by state and territory governments to combat serious or organised crime. For a person to receive a conviction under the state and territory organised-crime legislation, a court must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. This is a high bar. Including these offences in the ASIC and MSIC eligibility criteria will assist the government to address serious or organised crime in the aviation and maritime sectors.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aiming for a trifecta here. I indicate that the opposition is supporting Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments. These amendments are consistent with the intention of Labor's amendments, which are designed to ensure that the MSIC and the ASIC regimes remain focused on preventing people who would seek to do us harm from gaining access to those areas within our ports and airports. While Labor accepts that serious criminality should also now be targeted, specifically the importation and distribution of illegal drugs and firearms, the government must ensure that this additional purpose does not lead to a loss of focus on transport security in this post-9-11 environment.

In addition, we must ensure that the vetting system does not allow guilt by association. After all, for many people, having an ASIC or MSIC can mean the difference between having a job and not having one. Accordingly, individuals should be held accountable for their own personal conduct, not that of others. For this reason, Labor will be supporting these amendments.

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

The Greens will also be supporting these amendments. We feel that these amendments would provide a better balance between security at our ports and airports and the rights of people to work at our ports and airports. We think that the legislation as drafted goes too far. Just because a person has been a member of an organisation or associated with somebody who is a convicted offender, we do not believe that is reason enough for them to be barred from getting an MSIC or ASIC. For those reasons, we are supporting these amendments.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8067, moved by Senator Leyonhjelm, be agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.