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

I just want to go back to questions we were asking, particularly regarding foreign seafarers and comparing those foreign seafarers with the MCV card as opposed those with the MSIC. I want to draw the attention of the committee to an article on 12 March which went through a particular bust that was done of alleged cocaine importers. But they have the cocaine, so it's not so alleged!

We had the Australian Federal Police Commander Kirsty Schofield, the Australian Border Force acting commander of investigations Garry Lowe and the New South Wales police state crime command director Detective Chief Superintendent Darren Bennett, all of whom appear to have played key roles in busting this group. I congratulate them for the work that they've done. But I want to draw attention to this question of what the circumstances are with these MSICs and MCVs. What seemed to happen in this particular sorry story was that not only was there many hundreds of thousands of dollars in cocaine seized but $100,000 was also located in a shed in New South Wales. Further, they went on to find other evidence which showed that the estimated value of a kilogram block was $230,000 and that those could attract two to three times that amount on the street.

This is probably the critical question, because, again, it comes back to the MSICs, which are required for and expected by employers in the shipping industry. Employers expect workers to have MSICs; they expect their workforce to be able to work in any secure area on and off the port. So they all have MSICs and they're expected to have MSICs; they're part of the conditions of them performing their duties. And because a lot of those employers are also law-abiding, along with their workforce, they're more than happy to have MSICs. It actually goes through detailed requirements requiring checks from various places, which I'm about to ask the minister about. But this raises the serious concern about those who don't have MSICs—these foreign seafarers, who are now doing more and more of the local shipping around Australia's coast and, of course, are plying in and out of our ports around this country.

Regarding the joint agency operation that I mentioned, the article says:

The joint-agency operation marks the third time authorities have nabbed boats attempting to import large quantities of cocaine since the pandemic crisis started. But the method of at-sea transfers isn't anything new.

The at-sea transfer is a well-known method that a lot of organised crime groups use ... what certainly has changed is the way in which we actually have to deal with these sorts of vessel importations when they arrive on shore; there's a real COVID overlay that we have to apply, particularly if crew on the vessels are from a foreign country.

It talks about the complexity but, most importantly, it also talks about the fact this is one of three major busts that have randomly been discovered—and in this particular case by overseas intelligence. It also goes to the point that all of the seafarers that are potentially involved in this particular illegal activity do not have an MSIC pass. They have not been properly checked to see what ASIO might think of them, what information criminal intelligence agencies in Australia might have on them or what information the Department of Home Affairs has regarding immigration checks. So all of these checks and inspections aren't a regular go-to for maritime crew visas. If they were, we would see a situation where the average time it would take to act on them would be like the 80 per cent that take an average of nearly three weeks or 15 working days and some that go to three months and six months. But, somehow in the case of maritime visa holders, they're able to turn around and say that they have the capacity to come up with the answers within 24 to 48 hours.

Often the checks we do on Australian crew are appropriate checks, though there have been some examples where it has not been appropriate. We've had one example where a person working in the industry had been involved in a fight many decades ago at a very young age and every year when he goes to get his card there is a further delay. He's given evidence to the Senate inquiry more than once, and I congratulate him for coming forward and being open to scrutiny from everybody and saying, 'These are the circumstances that I find myself in, and when I try to get my security pass it's delayed and delayed.' And we've seen him miss ships as a result of it.

So we go back to this question about MSIC and ASIC and the two different standards that apply. We've got ammonium nitrate carried around our borders, all around this country. We saw the case where 2,500 tonnes of ammonium nitrate blew a huge hole in Beirut. Most importantly and most horrifically, that ammonium nitrate exploding resulted in not only substantial financial damage but also loss of life, loss of limbs and many injuries. We see examples where ammonium nitrate is now being moved all around this country by foreign seafarers. They don't have to wait 15 working days—which is actually three weeks—or six weeks, or three months or six months; they get their licence within 48 hours.

What's clear in the way this is approached by this government is that there is a failure to properly check the people—potentially the most dangerous individuals—who are potentially plying drugs on our borders. The government argues that that's all too expensive—that it is too expensive to do that. What about the lives that are affected? What about the fact that we don't take action to make sure that drugs and weapons are not imported into this country?

It's appropriate to turn around to make sure that the maritime crew visa is extended to having the same obligations as, or similar obligations to, MSIC. When you're off a ship, as we spoke about this morning in Geelong—two people have left a ship and can't be found. I gather they're MCVs; they're certainly not MSICs, because MSICs require even further detailed checks. We've now got people roaming around the countryside as a result of the inappropriateness of the systems we use to know what is actually happening on ships coming to and from our ports.

Three separate, major cocaine busts—Minister, can you step us through the MSIC, which we got part way through before question time came up, and then the maritime crew visa and highlight the differences between the two?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The MCV currently involves an assessment of the following in relation to a visa applicant: character concerns, including an assessment of criminality; security concerns, on advice from ASIO; risks relating to weapons of mass destruction; whether there are any debts to the Commonwealth; whether the applicant has complied with previously held visas; whether they pose fraud risks; and whether they hold a valid passport.

The ASIC-MSIC background check currently consists of an assessment of the applicant's identity; a full security assessment from ASIO; a criminal history check by ACIC, which involves obtaining a full criminal history of the applicant and assessing it against relevant eligibility; and an immigration check, where required, by the Department of Home Affairs.

Whilst there is a degree of overlap between the MCV and ASIC-MSIC checks, they are undertaken for different purposes and in relation to different risks. An MCV check is tailored to a temporary visa for entering Australia; the ASIC-MSIC checks are more detailed assessments of people with an ongoing need for unsupervised access to the secure areas of Australia's ports and airports.

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

You raised, in the case of maritime crew visas, that there is an assessment of character. Could you step me through what the assessment is of the character of the individual and how that's formulated? Who's contacted? Do they ring up the captain, like Captain Sal—

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

Captain Salas.

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

Captain Salas—how could I forget?—and wait for an email from him that he sends off to head office? What's the process that's applied to these checks that you say are appropriate?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that strict qualifying criteria apply to all online applications to maintain the integrity of the department's border management and to enable the department to control volumes of applications. Pre COVID, around 280,000 MCVs were granted per year. Applicants must be outside Australia at the time of application, but the application may be finalised when the applicant is onshore. Applicants are checked against a central movement alert list, which checks biographical data, such as name or passport number, for matches against specific people or documents of concern. It will refer an MCV application with either a MAL match or a potential match for manual processing. Applications are also checked against the safeguard system, which is a rules based risk-profiling system that alerts processing officers to risks and suggests potential treatments, such as further document fraud checks, site visits or interviews. It may also refer an application to MGPC for manual processing.

Checks against these systems run automatically, several times, in application processing so that applications are frequently checked against the latest contents of the risk systems. Discretionary checks can also be performed by the processing office. If an applicant does not meet the relevant requirements after a manual assessment, the application is refused and the applicant is advised. An application which has been automatically or manually granted may be ceased under subclause 33(b)(3). The decision-maker may make a written declaration, for the purposes of this section, that it is undesirable that a person or any persons in a class of persons travel to and enter Australia or remain in Australia.

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

Looking at this question, then, on the MCV, maybe in layman's terms I might understand it and—heaven forbid!—anyone else listening might understand it. Why does it take six weeks to do an investigation of the average person who gets an MSIC or ASIC card, and why does an MCV take only 24 to 48 hours? It's clear to me that most normal-thinking persons would say that one is more thorough and one is less thorough.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During 2020, AusCheck processed 85 per cent of the 59,814 ASIC and 14,941 MSIC applications received within 15 business days, including the time spent with external checking partners. This represents almost a 10 per cent improvement in processing times over 2019, where 77 per cent of applications were processed within 15 business days. An ASIC or MSIC background check consists of verifying an applicant's identity, a criminal history check, a national security check and a migration status check where required. Where a complex criminal history is returned, AusCheck may be required to contact local jurisdictional courts to seek additional information to ensure accuracy within the assessment process. These complexities may require an additional processing time and are beyond AusCheck's control.

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

Thank you for that answer. I want to go to one part—the migration status that may be required to be checked. On what basis is it required or not required to be checked?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you are an Australian citizen, it wouldn't need to be checked. If you're not an Australian citizen, there would be a check to make sure that you have the appropriate visa.

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

If they're Australian citizens, there isn't a migration check full stop. Is that what happens? Do I understand it correctly?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

So we don't do a migration check on them. We don't put it through the system. What are the other reasons why it takes just 24 to 48 hours in comparison to doing what are lengthy investigations—I'm not saying inappropriate investigations but they are lengthy, sometimes too lengthy, investigations—into Australian crews?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While an MCV can be granted in 48 hours, it is important to note that the MSIC and MCV schemes operate for two different purposes and undertake different checks. The MSIC scheme operates for the purpose of accessing security zones, whilst the MCV operates for the purpose of immigration, entry and stay rights. Where a foreign seafarer requires unsupervised access to a maritime security zone, they must have an MCV and MSIC. Any evidence of people accessing a maritime security zone without holding an MSIC or being supervised by an MSIC holder should be reported to the department for investigation. During the 2020 calendar year, AusCheck processed 85 per cent of ASIC and MSIC applications within 15 days.

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

What's becoming clear is that we have a situation where we've had three major drug busts, with kilos upon kilos of cocaine coming into the country, and on those occasions we've identified that it was on foreign crewed ships. We've got ammonium nitrate flowing around our borders and taken from coastal port to coastal port by foreign crews. We've got people that are on MCVs that are given what appears to be the tick and flick and then we have Australian seafarers who have a thorough check—and a thorough check is not inappropriate. In actual fact, we're in agreement with the government that the thorough check should take place. What we're in disagreement about is that the vast majority of people who are actually plying on our coastal ships and coming into our waters and our ports are not checked in an appropriate fashion for being terrorists or checked for criminality, because there is no sensible way, on the descriptions we've just had, that there could possibly be the same detailed checks that take place for those particular crews. You'd think that there would be high danger areas about which you'd make these considerations.

As has been suggested in an amendment from Labor, we should look at important areas where there's vulnerability, and of course the MCV is one of those very fundamental areas where there is vulnerability. We should be turning around and making sure that those people are held to account, if they're doing something wrong. Many of them aren't, but there are enough doing something wrong to see thousands of kilos of cocaine over a period of time, over years, cross our borders. As we saw in that example I gave just a few minutes ago of Port Botany in March this year, it's coming from people that are going out to these foreign crewed ships and bringing in multi amounts of cocaine and illegal-gotten gains and money onto our shores.

It's clear we must make sure we have a proper and robust system. What I'm not clear on is if the government agrees with the former 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 terrorist groups may seek to exploit'. The report says:

Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised 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.

Does the government agree that the department of immigration is right?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's imperative that the government puts measures in place to prevent serious crime for the safety and security of all Australians. This bill was developed in response to a number of independent reviews that recognised the critical vulnerability created by serious and organised criminals exploiting the ASIC and MSIC schemes for criminal purposes. The government acknowledges that flag-of-convenience ships can also pose a risk to the maritime environment that can be exploited by organised crime groups. The government regularly reviews the aviation and maritime environments to address all vulnerabilities and to strengthen aviation and maritime security.

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

Minister, following from your answer there, you said that there is monitoring by the government at the appropriate security levels that should exist at our ports. When was the last time the MCVs were monitored, and what reports were given about the deficiencies and efficiencies of the MCV monitoring?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised there's been no specific review, but the government is regularly updating and considering all of those visa settings.

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

Now we learn that there's no review of our borders when it comes to MCVs; three ships are coming into our country and there is no review on the MCVs when people are throwing off drugs into sister ships and coming into our ports!

There has been no review of the MCV. Doesn't this just demonstrate the importance of making sure that they get off their backsides, start turning around and taking this seriously? If you throw your mind back, a lot of this was thrown up over a period of time under the guise of doing something for national security, and then under the guise of doing something for serious crimes. Now they're turning around and saying: 'Well, in actual fact, we're not worrying about the ones that are the worst. We're not worrying about the people actually committing the crimes on these foreign vessels, these foreign crews.'

It seems absolutely logical that the government should be doing a proper investigation, and it's important, in light of what we've been discussing with our amendments, that the MCV, which hasn't been reviewed, gets reviewed. The MCV, which has seen multiple players involved in drug importation, doesn't have the same requirements as ASICs and MSICs. And it's not because the ASIC or MSIC should be changed—in fact, we've already indicated the importance of ASICs and MSICs in the past; it's about how you turn around and make our borders safe. Making it safe isn't saying, 'We regularly review whether we should have a review.' It is actually about doing the reviewing. We've got an example of a huge importation of cocaine that slapped you in the face in March. An extremely good job was done by joint forces dealing with that particular incident, but the people were on MCVs. There weren't appropriate checks.

I want to turn to one other issue before I may well come back to the MCV question. At one point last year there were eight Rio Tinto ships off the coast of Queensland. Four were Australian vessels with Australian crew; the other four were flag-of-convenience vessels with foreign crew. Why are these crew not required to hold an MSIC?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason is because only anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of airports or seaports needs an ASIC or an MSIC, regardless of their nationality.

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

Thank you, Minister. Well, doesn't this go to the heart of things? What has been suggested here is that we should go to the criminals and ask them, 'Do you want an MSIC or an ASIC?' And when they say, 'No,' we do nothing. The whole idea of having people go through security checks is to have an appropriate security check. The people who are actually involved in criminal activity don't ask for MSICs. You'd be surprised the things that criminals do get up to. They won't even abide by regulations by asking for an MSIC, because they're going to walk off unescorted. Heaven forbid! Next they will be importing hundreds of kilos of cocaine, and bringing in guns and weapons and various other threats to this country.

It seems absolutely illogical there would be a situation where we have, in the case of Rio Tinto ships off the coast of Queensland last year—as I said, four were Australian vessels. And to the credit of both the crew and those companies that ran those vessels, they made sure that people had MSICs, because they wanted the extra check. They wanted it to be safe. They wanted it to be secure. They wanted people to actually work efficiently on their ports. These are all things that are of high merit.

When you go to the other four ships, the flag-of-convenience ships, they were doing the exact same types of work for Rio Tinto, they were doing the exact same work, but, funnily enough, those companies don't want or require MSICs to be taken out. In actual fact those crew members don't want MSICs taken out either—maybe because it takes a little bit of time or maybe because they're criminals that can't turn around and be held to account in this country under the system that we're applying at the moment, unless they apply for an MSIC, which requires a more rigorous approach to the oversight of those plying our borders all around this country. Is the minister telling the parliament that every single foreign crewperson who is not required to have an MSIC is never left unattended in secure areas of ports?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have these screening processes for people with MSICs because they have unescorted access to secure areas. Where there is evidence of someone illegally accessing those areas, of course that should be reported, but the whole purpose of the scheme is to make sure that those who do have access to these particularly sensitive and particularly secure areas are given particularly rigorous background checking.

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

Minister, I was hoping not to go down this path, to have to regurgitate, but, with the greatest respect, we have a different minister at the table, so I think it is very important we take a few steps back so you can get a handle on what is going on. What we know in this nation is that when foreign ships come in with foreign crews—foreign flagged vessels or flags of convenience—within 24 to 48 hours an email is sent off to the ABF that says, 'This is who is on the ship.' Then the ABF go off and they have a little background check. They make sure that no flags come up. What the minister was trying to tell us is that everything is tickety-boo; everything is Mickey Mouse.

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee had five inquiries into this. I also spoke to the Greens and the crossbenchers when this bill was before us months ago, back in March. It was around the time when that big heap of cocaine fell off the mothership and was picked up by the small fishing vessel. They said, 'Hang on, we've got to look a little bit further into this, because we have a very filthy stain on our maritime history that goes back only a few years, and it is a ship called the Sage Sagittarius'. You should know, Senator Seselja, what happened on the Sage Sagittarius under the leadership, or the captainship, of Captain Salas, a Filipino. On its way to Australia, not far out of port, one of the crew members fell overboard. They went missing—tragic, terrible. As the ship was coming into Newcastle—I thought it was Newcastle, but I'll stand corrected if it was Botany or whatever it was—just prior to it coming into the heads, within hours, another crewman went headfirst down into the bottom of the ship—dead.

The Japanese who owned the ship thought: 'What are we going to do? There's something mysterious going on on this ship.' I hope you are taking it in, Senator Seselja, because I'm going put the same questions that I put to the previous minister, who was given the wrong information and, I believe, didn't provide the right answer to the Senate. I'm not suggesting for one minute they purposely misled the Senate, but the Senate was not told the truth. So have a good listen here. What happened was the Japanese got the undercover detective or inspector and put him on the ship disguised as a seafarer. They went off. They left Australian shores. Chair, you will remember this vividly. It headed back to Japan. Just as the ship berthed and they were unloading, somehow the undercover detective fell into the conveyer belt and was killed—two deaths and one missing overboard.

The worst part about this was that before Captain Salas left our shores he admitted to gun running and illegally selling alcohol. Senator Sheldon asked questions of ministers and department officials: how rigid and how solid are these background checks? We expect that they are rigid and they are solid. How the hell we can find that out in 24 to 48 hours still baffles me. What we have worked out here, Minister, is that if someone has been caught doing something illegally and the name on the passport matches the face and it brings up a red flag then—yes, aren't we great?—we can stop this. The truth of the matter is that you, the government, have no idea if criminals are mixing on these ships if they haven't been caught mixing before. How the hell can we in this chamber delay the passage of legislation because we want to have a greater look into this to see that you want to do this properly? At the same damned time, you would have thought Labor concocted this, where a big heap of cocaine went off the side of the ship so we could say: 'See? There you go. It happened.' But there it is. I asked the previous minister: Who were the seafarers on that ship? Do we have the names? Are there investigations? I am still waiting for an answer. I'm hoping someone will come back to me.

Also, Minister, when I asked the minister who was previously in the position you're in, with the advisers there in the box, I clearly said, 'I don't hold these advisers culpable,' because I'd said very, very clearly that there is a minister in this place who no longer has the portfolio, Minister Dutton, who knows every filthy, sneaky, dirty little thing that happened on the Sage Sagittarius, yet he's been conveniently transferred to another portfolio. You would think that he would pass on the info all the way down the chain so the new advisers and the department officials get to know what he knows and what we, the Senate committee that did the inquiry, know.

So you see our frustration here, Minister. When we said to Minister Cash earlier on, 'Can you guarantee us, 100 per cent kosher, that you will know if anything has gone wrong and that, if there is criminality or a criminal conviction or if there are accusations around these foreign seafarers coming in, you would have a red flag that goes up?' the minister said very clearly—and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong—'No, we had nothing on Captain Salas; there were no dramas.' Captain Salas admitted gun running. Captain Salas admitted bootlegging and selling alcohol. Captain Salas left our shores.

Minister, here's the crunch. Be very, very careful, please, because I don't want to see you getting done for something that you might innocently walk into. In his absence, the New South Wales coroner were doing an investigation in Sydney, and they couldn't find Captain Salas. The ABF couldn't find Captain Salas. The AFP couldn't find Captain Salas. The state jurisdictions couldn't find Captain Salas. It was a couple of years in between the two deaths and the missing seafarer that went overboard and when this New South Wales Coroner's Court was going on. At the smoko break, they were going to pull up stumps and say, 'We can't go any further because we can't find Captain Salas.' But, lo and behold, in the audience there was a journo who wrote for one of the News Corp rags up on the Sunshine Coast somewhere, Owen Jacques. Owen Jacques was in the room. Owen Jacques went up to the prosecutor at the smoko break and said, 'I can tell you, sir, where Captain Salas is.' All our agencies and our spooks and everyone else couldn't tell us, but Owen Jacques could tell us. You know why, Minister? He went to that magnificent thing called the internet, he punched out whatever it was that he punched out, and, lo and behold, there was Captain Salas. They could tell you the ship he was coming on and what port he was going into. I believe he was going into Gladstone. It also showed that he had been in and out of Gladstone and Weipa on a number of occasions. Minister Cash was advised that there was nothing on Captain Salas and that's why his name never popped up and they couldn't find him.

So I very, very carefully ask again: how the hell can we and the rest of Australia, without the help of Owen Jacques, believe this government that your 24-hour or 48-hour faxes with your stringent border or background checks on these seafarers can make the Australian population—all 25 million of us—really confident that you know what's coming in this nation and who's coming in this nation? How can you tell us that, Minister, when the previous minister sat where you are, stood up, and answered that that couldn't happen because they didn't have anything on Captain Salas? The rest of the world that followed this inquiry knew what was going on with Captain Salas. Owen Jacques, the reporter, knew where Captain Salas was. So, Minister, I ask you one more time, following on from the questions that Senator Sheldon asked: can you stand up here in front of this Senate and categorically tell us that you, the government, know every single person coming on our shores and know that they are the face on the passport and they have no criminality because your checks are rock solid and nothing will get past you?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, given you've already asked the question of Minister Cash and the answer's been given, I don't intend to add anything to the answer.

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

That's a shame, because I still say the Senate was misled in its answers. Take it however you want. Push it further up the chain. I'm happy to confront any committee in this Senate to put forth my case, and the appropriate minister can defend themselves, because I look forward to it.

Let me bring you to another debacle. I can't believe this myself. It seems like every time we talk about the transport security amendments in this place, something turns to custard. Today we have news breaking that two Asian crew members have snuck off a cargo ship docked at the Geelong port. So before I go any further—and I'm going to go further—can someone please tell me: is the Geelong port an MSIC port or is it one of those ones that falls through the gap and you don't have to have MSICs?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the Geelong port, I think it is, would be a secure area for the purposes of an MSIC, based on risk assessments at particular times, depending on what ships are coming in.

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

This makes it worse, then. What we're well aware of—the whole world knows, and, if you haven't known, you're going to know now—is that two Asian crew members snuck off the cargo ship docked at the Geelong port. This was more than 60 hours ago. I'll go back to when this email came through, so it's probably about 62 hours. They've snuck off a ship called the Glorious Plumeria 60 hours ago and disappeared. I would then ask: Minister, while you have listened to my case—previous ministers have listened to what the senators on this side have been putting—how can anyone now stand up without cracking up or falling into a hole because they've been caught out fibbing? Minister, tell us that there's an MSIC port and two Asian crew members have snuck off. Were they escorted off by MSIC people? I don't know. Enlighten us, please.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that, in relation to the specific case, the ABF will investigate.

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

I was ready for that piddly little response, because I was—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator—

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

I withdraw 'piddly'—'pathetic'. Sorry, I respect you, Temporary Chair Brockman, as the chair. I was expecting that pathetic response. Here we go, Australia—25 million Aussies: 'Nothing to see here.' At two in the morning, they snuck off the ship in an MSIC port, where they're supposed to be escorted because 'We've got eyes on everything; no-one gets past us.' I'll raise another one here. I want the 25 million Australians in this nation to see through the bulldust that comes from that side of the chamber. You talk up a big fight on security. You're full of bulldust. I was rather restrained there for you, Temporary Chair Brockman. Here's another one. What we're very clearly told—because Senator Sheldon and myself, and our good mate and the Chair and Senator Barry O'Sullivan, lived and breathed this stuff for a couple of years, so the government departments couldn't wait to tell us. As part of the you-beaut, tickety-boo, 'I wouldn't lie to you' email 48 hours or 24 hours out, we're told—I don't know if you know this, Minister, but you will in a minute—that the captain keeps all passports secured in a safe on the ship. I'll give you the opportunity, Minister, to consult with the officials in the box there. Am I right?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of airports and seaports needs an ASIC or an MSIC, regardless of nationality, as I've pointed out. Labor is clearly, I think, in this filibuster, seeking to muddy the waters—and no surprises there—because they don't want to support this legislation. There's no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold an MSIC. An MSIC ensures the holder has been background-checked and it allows the holder to be unescorted inside a maritime security zone.

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

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you, Senator Seselja. I know it's not in my character, but I am starting to feel sorry for you, because you're only reading what's being handed to you. I understand you have many strengths in this building; shipping, or foreign shipping, is not one of them.

Let me tell you this and get this very clear. As you said, this is an MSIC port. These people did not have MSICs and nor did I even try to attempt to mislead you by saying they had MSICs. But, you see, what I did say, Minister—and I really would like you to have a really good think before a piece of paper flicks over that is just completely off the planet—was: a fax would have come in, or is supposed to have come in, with all the names—48 or 24 hours out to sea—of who was on the Glorious Plumeria. As I said to you, Minister, we know this—the world knows this; Australia knows this; everyone knows this. As to the receiving ship, as to a maritime crew visa—for you, Minister: not an MSIC; a maritime crew visa for a foreign seafarer—the passports are to be kept securely locked in a safe in the captain's quarters or on the ship somewhere. That is fact, Minister. So, while your people are having a look there, I ask you once again: could I have got this wrong?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct.

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

Thank you, Minister. So, Minister, while I am feeling sorry for you, and I do appreciate your honesty, I have to raise this for the world and for the 25 million Australians to know, because what we have been told, very, very clearly, is that, as to the two Asian crew members—who snuck off the Glorious Plumeria, they think, around 2 am on Sunday, and the ship sailed at 3 pm today—their passports were missing from the security box/safe or whatever it may be.

So I come back to this: how can we, as concerned Australians, who all want to unite to do everything to stop the insidious trade of drugs and weapons and all that into our nation, take this government seriously and, with our hand on our hearts, say: 'You've got it all worked out; nothing's going to get past you'? This is before I even start talking about where the freight moves, because it ain't the MSIC cardholders running around the port moving these drugs; these are going on the backs of trucks and in containers. So I come back to my question: Minister, how can we take this government seriously, as to you having a handle on this? And how is this legislation going to stop that sort of criminal behaviour?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. In terms of the specifics you're talking about, the ABF will of course investigate those specifics, and I wouldn't make any further comment in relation to that, on the government.

But, when it comes to our record, this is a government that has had a record that is the envy of those opposite when it comes to securing our borders. There's no doubt about that. We could go over the years and years of history to show that it is a coalition government that takes these issues seriously and it is those opposite who operate an open-borders approach—there's no doubt about that. When it comes to securing our borders or dealing with serious and organised crime, we've demonstrated our bona fides. We've seen in relation to Operation Ironside just this week that organised criminals are taking advantage, and we are doing everything we can to stop them. Serious crime is a major threat to our way of life, and that's what this legislation is about. It's about saying that those who are going to have unescorted access to secure areas will have to undergo these kinds of serious checks.

It's interesting that the Labor Party seek to delay this legislation, that they seek to filibuster, that they seek to talk about anything other than the actual legislation that is before the Senate. They haven't been able to explain why they don't believe we should be delivering these reforms. They'll point to all sorts of other things that they might like to improve that they didn't improve when they were in government eight years ago. Well, that's fine. Have that debate. But it's transparently clear that this is simply about them not wanting to bring this to a vote. They don't want to see it come to a vote because they don't want to be on the wrong side of this. So they need to now make the argument as to why they're going to vote against this—or are they not? Are they just going to draw it out and draw it out and then maybe eventually vote for it? Are they going to have a bet each way? That's what they seem to be doing here, because they're throwing up a lot of red herrings that aren't about what this legislation is actually about.

This legislation is actually about having proper security vetting for those who have unescorted access to these areas. We've explained the differences and we've explained the different checks through the detailed questions that were asked by Senator Sheldon. We can see what's going on. Thank you for the lectures. When it comes to border security, we will compare our record to yours any day of the week, absolutely any day of the week. You keep referring to the 25 million Australians listening. That's optimistic! But regardless of who is listening and how many are listening, any of them would know that this Liberal-National government has an enviable record on keeping our borders safe. Those opposite, when they were last in government, couldn't be trusted, and it was one of the reasons the Australian people got rid of them.

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

I would like to correct the record. I don't feel sorry for you. Now we're going to have some real open debate here, because you've just proved, Minister, that your pay packet will guide you, not common sense. Whatever you get paid, you'll parrot the line when you've got no proper answer. So let's come back to this. I want to use your words, Minister, not mine. I wrote them down.

I asked you about these two Chinese people that scurried off this ship at two in the morning. They disappeared. It was nothing to do with MSIC. They would have had maritime crew visas. You couldn't answer that. You hid behind Border Force: 'We'll have an inspection.' Yes, okay. Then you used the words 'unvetted access to these areas', so I assume you mean the port where the two Chinese seafarers scurried off. How good is this! If I want something off a ship, I've only got to walk in at 2.00 am, because no-one's watching and no-one's there! Is that what happens on our ports, Minister? You want to start going to the bottom of the barrel and talking about the difference between organised crime and those poor devils who want to seek a better life in Australia. You got into the gutter, Minister. Do you want to get into the gutter with me? I'm happy to take that challenge up with you.

You also used these words, Minister—you're referring, I assume, to all seafarers, but in particular to the two Chinese whose passports were missing out of the safe. I don't know how they got access to the safe. Is anyone going to ask how they got access to the safe? Is anyone dragging the captain in to ask what's going on? You said this: they'll undergo these serious checks. Oh, shoot! Serious checks! You're telling us you have serious checks when you've got two Chinese that have scurried off an MSIC port. Hollywood can't write comedy, but the Brits are funny people. They could write this! You can puff and blow as much as you like, Minister, but, if you want to take on someone who's been working in this area for the last eight years, who's done all these inquiries, then get your facts right. If you can beat me with the facts, I'll be the first one to put my hands up.

You say we're filibustering. We're the ones that have seriously said that we want to do this and we want to do this properly. I'm asking the same questions because two Chinese, under your watch, Minister, are now roaming around our nation with their passports. You have no idea who they are. You have no idea how they got off the port. You have no idea who's connected. There are a series of questions that the media have asked Border Force too, and I'm going to start reading them because, you know what? I'd love to know if you can answer them. These are the questions: who are the men you're now searching for? We don't have any names. While you're in the gutter, Minister, why don't you drag yourself up for a little bit, get your head above the line and start listening to this? A lot of people will be thinking about this. What are the personal details of these people? What is their description? Do you know? We just know they're two Asians. Can you provide photos of them? Hey, how's this one? You haven't got their passports. This'll be interesting. So how the hell are you going to know what they look like? Oh, my goodness! This is going to start hurting my head. Do you have an answer? Do you think you have an answer? Do you think you can find two Asian people in Australia with no passports? Do you know who you're looking for?

Progress reported.