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

I rise to contribute to the committee stage of this debate and move amendment (1) on sheet 1117:

(1)      Clause 2, page 2 (table items 1 to 3), omit the table items, substitute:

1. The whole of this Act   At the same time as the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Act 2020 commences.

I flag that Labor has a number of amendments that have been circulated to the chamber. I will be speaking to those and asking some questions, and I would encourage senators to consider the issues that have been raised. As I flagged in my speech in the second reading debate, Labor has a number of concerns in relation to the transport security serious crimes legislation. The amendments that we are moving seek to address those concerns.

The first amendment that I wish to speak to tonight and questions that I wish to ask go to the issue of foreign flagged crew. This amendment delays the commencement of the legislation until the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020 commences. I start with this amendment because it is, I understand and accept, an unusual amendment for us to consider. That is, the effect of this amendment would be that, should the transport security serious crimes legislation pass this parliament, its commencement would be delayed until a private senator's bill that I have submitted, the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020, commences. I will just belabour this point because this is the only way that we have to deal with the gaping hole that sits in this legislation. The gaping hole that sits in this legislation is that, while the government is making changes to the provision of security clearance cards for Australian domestic workers at Australian airports and seaports, it is not doing one thing at all to address flag-of-convenience vessels and their foreign crew and the security challenges that they pose.

Let's understand this: under this legislation, while Australian workers can be subject to a three-month wait for their security clearance, foreign crew can currently access a maritime crew visa, subclass 988, and enter Australia with as little as 24 hours notice, with no security clearance and no MSIC required. We know that at one stage last year Rio Tinto used eight ships in Queensland waters. Four of the ships had Australian seafarers, and all required an MSIC. Four had crew on foreign vessels. Through flag-of-convenience arrangements, none of these crews needed an MSIC or a maritime security clearance. This issue came out in the Senate inquiry. Foreign crew are currently escorted by an MSIC passholder when in secure areas of ports, but Australian government authorities have been concerned that foreign crew can be open to exploitation from organised crime syndicates or terrorist groups. As indicated by the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection, this isn't some stakeholder group that the government likes to dismiss. This was actually their own department raising concerns in 2017 that:

There are features of flag of convenience registration, regulation and practice that organized crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.

Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make flag of convenience ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organized 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 …

These are not my words; these are the words of the Department of Immigration and Border Security.

In 2017 we also heard evidence that the New South Wales coroner was investigating three highly suspicious deaths onboard Sage Sagittarius. The foreign master of that ship was a person of interest in those investigations. The same man, Captain Salas, had admitted to being a gun runner when subpoenaed to appear in the Coroners Court. Captain Salas was allowed to work in the Australian domestic shipping industry under a maritime crew visa for eight months.

It is all well and good for the government to stand up and parade about and say they're getting tough and they're cracking down on security arrangements for Australian workers who work at ports and airports, and we have a number of amendments that go to some of our concerns about the legislation. But there is nothing in this legislation that addresses the security risk posed by foreign crew, by flag-of-convenience crew. That is why I am moving this amendment—because Labor proposes that there is a better way to ensure that foreign crew are subject to more-extensive security requirements, and that would be to reform the maritime crew visa. We feel so strongly about this that we are asking this Senate to approve that this transport security bill cannot be commenced until the security challenges around foreign crew have been addressed.

We're going to hear the government say that the vast majority of maritime crew visa holders do not require unescorted access in maritime security zones. They'll say that any seafarer, whether Australian or foreign, is only required to hold an MSIC if they require unsupervised access to a maritime security zone. And they're going to say that obligating visa holders to comply with elements of the MSIC scheme where they do not require unsupervised access to a maritime security zone would pose a significant financial burden on the administration of the scheme for no discernible benefit. While the Canberra boffins here tell their ministers that foreign crew do not have unescorted access to ports, any wharfie can tell you that this is not the case. Any worker on a wharf can tell you that that's not the case.

The Morrison government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to security at our ports, and foreign crew, as we heard in Senate inquiries, are routinely left to wander around secure areas. This is something that was examined in the recent RRAT inquiry into this flawed bill. So, my first question to the government is: does the government agree with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's 2017 finding that there are features of flag-of-convenience registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit? Does the government agree that, as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said in 2017, reduced transparency and secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that make flag-of-convenience vessels more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime and terrorist groups? Does the government agree that flag-of-convenience ships, as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection said, can be used in a range of illegal activities, including the illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people-smuggling and facilitation of prohibited imports or exports? And if the government doesn't agree that there are risks, can it please explain where the Department of Immigration and Border Protection is wrong?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can answer that for you. Do you want me to do it for you?

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the generosity of Senator Sterle in allowing me to answer on behalf of the government. I know he would love to be on this side seizing the opportunity himself. The government will not be supporting the amendment to the bill on sheet 1117, because that would make the commencement of the bill, as Senator Keneally has outlined, contingent on the passage of Senator Keneally's private member's bill, which seeks to link aspects of the MSIC background check process with maritime crew visas, particularly as they apply to foreign flagged vessels. That would have the consequence of those people being unable to get visas unless they underwent a similar process. The opposition's bill replicates what is already in place under the maritime crew visa requirements that exist in current migration legislation. For a person to be granted a maritime crew visa—and this is important for those opposite who have kicked and screamed and fought this all the way—their criminal history and their national security risk are considered by the Department of Home Affairs before the visa is issued. Requiring that this also be assessed under the MSIC scheme is an unnecessary duplication of those requirements. The government doesn't support Senator Keneally's bill, so an amendment to make the commencement of this bill contingent on the passage of a bill that the government doesn't support would mean it's very likely that the important measures in this bill would never commence.

An argument has been made by those opposite that there is an injustice in using, for instance, detailed criminal history checks, or criminal intelligence reports, to assess the suitability of an Australian working on our wharves for an MSIC. The injustice that they say exists as a consequence is that people coming into Australia on foreign flagged vessels do not face the same background checks, the same level of scrutiny.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

That's the argument you've made. I understand what you're saying. I'm showing you, Senator Sterle and Senator Keneally, that I've listened and I've understood what you said. Now, if you'd let me address the floor on that, that would be nice. The difficulty with that—and it's important that those listening at home are able to follow this information—is that the vast majority of people who hold maritime crew visas do not require unescorted access to maritime security zones in the way that a person who has an MSIC receives. Visa holders are not given the free rein on our wharves that a person with an MSIC has.

It's been said by those opposite that anyone who has worked on an Australian wharf knows that people with a maritime crew visa are not subject to those restrictions in practical terms. Not only does that sit very uncomfortably with the clear evidence that was given by the department at the hearing but it also is reliant upon the evidence of those people who most have a vested interest in ensuring that they don't face the scrutiny of a rigorous MSIC scheme, and those are the unions that have fought so hard against this scheme. I would suggest that the reason for the government's opposition to this amendment is, put simply, the fact that it is simply not necessary in circumstances where criminal histories are checked and national security risks are checked for maritime crew visas and, furthermore, those people who receive such a visa do not require, should not be receiving and do not in practice receive unescorted access to zones that a person with an MSIC does have access to.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Stoker, I just want to clear a few things up. This is not something that I've just been asked to come down and have a chat about. I've actually been living and breathing this for many, many years, as many in this place would probably understand. For those who don't, I am the chair of the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which has been looking into this bill. We've been doing it for years. I think we've had five inquiries, and I must thank my colleagues in the Greens and on the crossbench, because when this bill was going to go through three weeks ago I actually went to the crossbenchers for support to continue. I thank Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, I thank Senator Lambie, I thank Senator Patrick, I thank Senator Griff and of course I thank my colleagues in the Greens, through Senator Rice, who has been a stalwart on this bill from the time that it came up.

Not only that, Senator Rice has been a stalwart on the issues facing our shipping industry. Like myself and Senator Sheldon, Senator Rice has watched the demise of the Australian shipping industry through teary eyes. Through the years of Prime Minister Howard we used to have 170-odd ships. I know that's a bit of history going back there, but it wasn't that long ago. Now we're down to 13, and that's if we count the icebreaker down there—what's it called? The one that's being replaced and we're waiting for the replacement ship to come? Otherwise, we're talking about 12.

Let's talk about our Australian ships, just while I'm at it, to give some clarity here. We have the two gas buggies—and good on Woodside for continuing with the gas going out of Dampier to Japan and Korea. Those are Australian vessels, Australian flagged and Australian crewed. Let's talk about the six that are running to Tasmania—the passenger ships, the Toll ships and the sea freight ships. And we can talk about the old clunker boat—no, the clinker boat. Sorry about that, boys and girls on the old clinker boat. I did pass you recently in the Bass Strait; I was on the Toll ship. Sorry about that!

So it doesn't leave a lot of confidence in the crossbench, the Greens and myself that the government has the best interests of Australia's seafarers and our shipping industry front of mind, because they don't. But I do have to pull you up, Senator Stoker, when you talk about clear evidence given to the committee. I will clearly, clearly articulate a few things that led to the frustration we had when I approached the crossbenchers and the Greens for support to continue the inquiry because of the disrespect that was shown—as Senator Rice knows—to the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. We had questions and we clearly and fairly sought answers to the questions about what the importance of this bill is, asking, 'Tell us how this bill is going to improve stopping the flow of illegal drugs coming into our nation.' As I've said very clearly a number of times, not only at Senate inquiries around this matter but to the Senate, the majority of the supply of illicit drugs—and I know that there are chemicals which make illicit drugs able to be purchased on our shores—are not coming in by hot air balloon. We are not seeing those coming across from Indonesia to our shores. They're certainly not being strapped to the legs of carrier pigeons. If they are, my goodness me, how big is the pigeon? I have one piece of evidence here, which I won't table, from as late as 12 March—what are we today; about the 16th or something?—that in the last couple of days 200 kilograms of cocaine was intercepted on a boat off Sydney. The majority of illegal drugs in this nation are not coming through our airports.

We all know—and I won't talk about what we've all done on previous committees and inquiries when we've gone backstage at Sydney or Melbourne airport, as we have, haven't we, Senator Rice? And I won't talk about the intelligence committees which we've all served on, because we turn our TVs on and see Border Security. We see those fine, diligent and hardworking men and women in border protection and immigration going through suitcases. They're probably finding the odd bit of fruit and veggies or some meat—and I won't talk about the other things we've found. So how is the majority of drugs coming in?

Listen to the government and to the ill-informed senators on the other side who are desperately trying to protect their minister. He doesn't really deserve any protection to be honest with you, but I understand how it works in this building: you're told to go down and do your duty. Do you seriously think that if we make it as hard as possible for a wharfie or a seafarer or someone working at the airport with their ASIC—and I know all about MSIC and ASIC. It was the first inquiry I did when I came here 15-odd years ago. Do we seriously think that these are the men and women who are importing and distributing the drugs? And I'll tell you about distribution. For God's sake, you know who the baddies are. You've got laws out there. Go into it. You cannot fool me for one minute.

Senator Sheldon, you would remember the disrespect the Senate was shown once again by the department of border protection and immigration. I don't blame the good folk there. The good man turned up in his uniform; he was summonsed. I'll tell you where I lay the blame; I lay the blame clearly at the feet of Minister Dutton. This is the same minister and the same secretary, Mr Pezzullo, from when I uncovered the fact that truck drivers were being exploited under the foreign visa system, on student visas. There is a common trend here. Are you seriously telling me that, if you make it as hard for possible for some decent working man or woman on the waterfront, who's doing the right thing day in and day out, you're going to combat the flow of illegal drugs into this area? Seriously, you should listen to what's stuck under your nose!

I'm going to help you out here, Senator Stoker, because I think you could be a very decent person, but you're getting fed the wrong information. Don't take that nonsense they've put in the bit of paper under your nose. We know what's going on in this nation. You have no idea. If you knew what was coming through—200 kilos! It's not an Australian mothership, because we damn well haven't got any out there. It's not an Australian crew. It's not Australian flagged. If you really want to address the issue of foreign drugs in this nation, can you seriously, in your heart of hearts, sit there and think that this is the bill that's going to fix it? It's not going to fix it, and I'll tell you why: because Minister Dutton in his office, all the boffins you've got there and all the pointy heads in the bureaucracy down here in Canberra at the department go, 'Oh my God, the drugs will stop because we're going to deny someone who may have a son who's been wayward, who's joined a motorcycle gang, his MSIC or his ASIC, and that'll stop the flow of drugs coming into this nation.' Come on, ladies and gentlemen! Please wake up. Is that your own evidence from your department down there?

I said, 'Do we actually have the checks and balances?' I can tell you, I don't have an MSIC and I've walked up the gangplanks and I've come down the gangplanks. 'Hello, boys and girls,' I've said as I've walked through security. 'No worries. I'm with him. I'm all right; he's got an MSIC too.' They say, 'Yeah, good to go.' They wouldn't know me from a bar of soap. When those seafarers come down the gangplank, I'm one who always stands up to look after foreign seafarers. But let's not fool ourselves. I'm going to have another 10 minutes when I talk about Captain Salas and the Sage Sagittarius, make no mistake about that, because I was the one who found that one out too.

'What's in your bag, mate?' Do you ask that? We asked the department officials, 'Do you know what's in the backpacks or suitcases of those foreign seafarers coming off these vessels?' No idea. It started off as crickets. 'Do you actually scan them like at the airport? Do they shuffle through security at the waterfront, where they strip off their belt and all that, and they go through, and the camera comes up, and there's a false alarm because they didn't take off their belt or they've left 10c in their pocket?' Zilch. Nothing. Not a clue. No idea. Is there any form of saying, 'I know the passport photo matches the face here for this Filipino or this Iranian'—and I'm not being prejudiced, because they are the majority of foreign seafarers being exploited around our coastline. 'Is that really you?' No idea. I asked them, 'Do you check this?' Do you know what the answer was—and I know you're going to have some fun here, Senator Sheldon: 'No, we don't have anyone. There's no-one on the port. We've got no idea.' This is before I even start with another 10 minutes about the temporary voyage permits—let me get going on that! Half the time, some of these ships don't even apply for a temporary voyage permit. We've got no idea. This is cuckoo land; this is crazy stuff.

I feel sorry for my colleagues across the chamber who are running Minister Dutton's line: 'I'm going to be tough as. I'm the ex-copper. I'll tell you what, we're going to stamp out drugs.' Oh, my goodness me! My question to you, Senator Stoker—I'm sorry you've got carriage of this; you're in the wrong place at the wrong time—is: do you honestly believe that this bill will stop the inflow of illicit drugs into this great nation via flags of convenience, foreign ships and exploited foreign seafarers?

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I very much enjoyed that, Senator Sterle. I look forward to an awful lot of theatrics tonight. I'm glad I've eaten well and settled in. The bill will certainly do no harm, particularly in the circumstances to which you point, and it will do some good in relation to the people who do pose a risk on the MSIC side.

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

The Greens are supporting this amendment from the Labor Party because we believe, like almost everybody in this place believes, that addressing the issue of serious crime is an incredibly important thing that we should focus on. We are supporting this amendment because, if you are concerned about addressing serious crime, it's important to look at where the problem is. I reiterate the comments made by Senator Keneally earlier on. Very clear evidence was given in the 2017 inquiry into flag-of-convenience shipping. Senator Keneally quoted this and I think it is worth quoting this again:

There are features of flag of convenience registration, regulation and practice that organized crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.

… factors that can make flag of convenience ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organized crime or terrorist groups.

This means that flag of convenience 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.

We are being told that the whole purpose of this legislation that has been introduced—and I will quote the explanatory memorandum—is to 'reduce criminal influence at Australia's security controlled airports, security regulated ports, and security regulated offshore oil and gas facilities'. If that's what we're aiming to do then we need to be looking in the right place. It seems to us that increasing the difficulty of getting an MSIC or an ASIC is not going to address this purpose at all. In contrast to what the minister just said about this bill not doing any harm, it is going to do harm and put unnecessary, unreasonable limitations on people's ability to work at our airports and ports. It will do significant harm. It will continue the harm this government has been doing to our domestic shipping industry for the last seven years. At the same time as our domestic shipping industry is going down the gurgler we are doing nothing about dealing with the risks of criminal activity from flag-of-convenience shipping. We are having legislation introduced that is looking in entirely the wrong place.

Minister, the explanatory memorandum says that the aim is to 'reduce criminal influence at Australia's security controlled airports, security regulated ports, and security regulated offshore oil and gas facilities'. What evidence do you have that increasing the difficulty of workers being able to get an MSIC or an ASIC is going to achieve that purpose? For the life of me I cannot see that it is going to do that, given that we know that there is far greater risk of criminal activity through flag-of-convenience shipping.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The threat, the impact and the cost of serious crime of this kind in Australia are real. There is a significant amount of information that indicates that serious and organised criminals who are based in Australia are controlling the illicit markets that can serve to fund a broad range of criminal activities and that they do pose a real risk to Australians. Organised criminals are gaining a major source of their revenue from the illicit drug market. Quite frankly, anything we can do to ensure our airports and seaports are not safe havens for serious criminal activity is important. These are important goals. They are objectives worth chasing.

The Australian Institute of Criminology has estimated that the cost in 2016-17 of crimes of this nature—serious organised crime—is between $23.8 billion and $47.4 billion. It's a cost that we expect will continue to rise. And so it is really important that the government put measures in place to prevent serious crime so that we can provide for the safety and security of all Australians.

I understand the point that you make is in relation to the foreign flagged vessels, as distinct from the Australian based people who carry an MSIC. I've indicated already in my answer to Senator Keneally the ways in which the maritime crew visa involves criminal history checks and security assessments to ensure that the risk on that front is mitigated, and the regime proposed in this bill is about strengthening the checks that apply to those who are based on Australian soil.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's really interesting, isn't it? I came into this place and discovered that I was taking over Senator Leyonhjelm's office. I did the appropriate smoking ceremony to try to cleanse it a little bit—actually, I did it more than once. I'm not sure how it went, but one thing that did impact on me was that he thought this proposal that's been put up by the government wasn't worth voting for, because this government previously put up a very similar bill.

We've got a situation here where the government are not really about dealing with problems on our waterfront or problems on our border, because there are quite clearly a whole series of significant weaknesses in our border security when it comes to drugs. What they are about is sounding like they're doing something. And what do you do when you want to sound like you're doing something? You take somebody's right off them. You no longer presume they're innocent before being proven guilty—or proven innocent—because of some intelligence, intelligence given in vengeance because someone's active in their union, intelligence which doesn't appropriately hold the people making those accusations to account.

There are a whole series of systems that can hold to account people that make false accusations. But, guess what? You don't get told what they are. When you don't get your MSIC or your ASIC, you no longer have a job. You're terminated. That's the presumption of innocence when it comes to this government. Wait a sec—there's not always just that presumption of innocence. In actual fact, the government has a very different view about the presumption of innocence. When it comes to the rule of law, the minister representing the Attorney-General says, 'We'll do anything we can,' but, when it comes to Christian Porter, it isn't the rule of law, is it? You have to have the presumption of innocence. Heaven forbid—he's an attorney-general, and, God, they're only port workers. So let's just go on the intelligence and get them sacked. Let's just turn around and treat them differently, because it's not Christian Porter. Why shouldn't we treat them differently? Quite clearly, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General like to go on about the rule of law, just like you, Senator Stoker, earlier today on the ABC. You said that, under the rule of law, people should be presumed to be innocent. But what you're doing here is taking away the presumption of innocence. People don't get their work. They get terminated. They get held over. They are not able to work. That's taking away the presumption of innocence. That's the worst thing you can do to a working person who's supporting their family—destroy their livelihood. But don't worry; it's the rule of law here.

What did Christian Porter say about the rule of law? He said:

My guess is if I were to resign and that set a new standard there wouldn't be much need for an Attorney-General anyway because there would be no rule of law left to protect in this country, so I will not be part of letting that happen …

Don't worry—it goes larger than Christian Porter. Scott Morrison said:

There is not some other process. There is not the mob process. There is not the tribe-has-spoken process. That's not how we run the rule of law in Australia.

No, the way you run the rule of law is you make accusations which can't be tested, for which this government can't appropriately be held to account. People lose their livelihood—except when it comes to Christian Porter, when it's a very different scenario. My question is this: will you apply the rule of law to these workers and give them the presumption of innocence?

Progress reported.