Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020 and amendment (1) on sheet 1117 revised moved by Senator Keneally.

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

Yesterday, in the committee debate, I note that Minister Seselja started to make comments about the fact that this important debate on an important national security bill was somehow 'holding up the passage of the bill'. I think it might be useful to put on the record the history of this legislation because if there is anyone holding up the passage of important reforms to transport security clearances it is the Liberal-National government. Let's understand the background of this bill. Similar bills have been introduced in the 44th and 45th parliaments and both failed to pass the parliament. In the 44th Parliament the bill was put forward, Labor senators provided additional comments at a Senate inquiry and the bill was allowed by the Liberal-National government to lapse at the election. We had the 2016 election and this bill which is before the parliament was allowed by this government, this Liberal and National government, to lapse at the election. In the 45th Parliament, Labor supported the legislation in principle, but successfully amended it in 2017 with support from the Greens and Senator Lambie and we have here that One Nation senators did not vote on that amendment. The bill was also amended by then Senator Leyonhjelm. What happened to that bill in the 45th Parliament? The bill was allowed to lapse by the Morrison government at the 2019 election.

Here we have a government that all of a sudden discovers an urgency about the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020. They had a similar bill in the 44th Parliament; they allowed it to lapse. They had a similar bill in the 45th Parliament; they allowed it to lapse. I'm not going to stand here and be lectured by a Liberal-National government that, for some six years now, has had half-hearted attempts to get a transport security bill up in the parliament and keeps letting it lapse, that does not even have the courage to put it forward for a vote. This current bill, introduced to the 46th Parliament, is largely similar to the other bills. There are some changes that have been highlighted in Senate inquiries. More than three years had passed since the legislation was last reviewed by a Senate committee, which is why it was referred to a Senate inquiry again. In that inquiry, there were a number of issues raised about the fact that the bill didn't even have a definition of 'serious crime' even though the bill was called the serious crime amendment, and that the bill did absolutely nothing to address the gaping hole that sits in this legislation around foreign crew on flag-of-convenience vessels. That gaping hole wasn't pointed out by the Labor Party; it wasn't pointed out by the unions; it was pointed out by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the national security agencies upon which this parliament should be taking its advice.

As this bill went through the House of Representatives earlier this year, it was the government that moved another amendment to the bill. It was the government that added something onto the bill. Since what they added on was an entirely new process to do with criminal intelligence assessments, an inquiry was supported by the Senate to look at that very issue. Let me be clear: we didn't relish the idea of having to go off to another inquiry. It was the mismanagement of the Liberal and National government with their own legislation; the fact that they introduced legislation that wasn't finished into the House of Representatives and the Senate after the Senate inquiry. Then they go and move an amendment to their own legislation. This Senate, with the support of the crossbench, agreed to another inquiry into that.

If the government had had their act together and put the legislation fully formed before the parliament we might have had a more efficient process. If the government had had their act together and actually put the legislation as amended by this Senate in the last parliament, if they'd put that legislation to a vote, if they'd accepted the amendments, we would have had this regime in place. It is entirely within the discretion of the Liberal-National government, the Morrison government, which sets the agenda in the parliament, to determine whether bills come forward for a vote. They let it lapse in the 44th Parliament, they let it lapse in the 45th Parliament and then they completely mismanaged the process in this parliament. I'm tempted to say it's like a clown car of ministers over there, running around trying to work out what to do with their own legislation.

While all this mismanagement is happening, we had the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, last week in a clumsy misfire trying to say that Labor is responsible for holding up the national security legislation. It was a clumsy and stupid statement by the Prime Minister. He cited three bills. He cited the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020. That is currently with the PJCIS, a Liberal dominated committee. He cited the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020. That was the subject of a bipartisan, unanimous report by the PJCIS recommending the bill be passed subject to legislative and non-legislative changes, and the government haven't even responded to that report yet. The Prime Minister doesn't even know what his own members are doing on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. He seems ignorant of the fact that the PJCIS had a unanimous recommendation supporting the passage of the bill.

So let's not be lectured by the Prime Minister on who is doing what in relation to national security, when he seems completely unaware of what is happening with various pieces of national security legislation. If he had been truthful with the Australian people, he would have acknowledged that it was his government that let the transport security bill lapse at the 2019 election. It was his government that mismanaged this legislation through the parliament. It was his government that brought forward an additional amendment requiring the Senate to have to look at a new process through an inquiry. Let's not be lectured by this government that somehow the appropriate scrutiny that opposition and crossbenchers apply to this bill is somehow holding it up. It is entirely the Liberal-National government, the Morrison government, that is holding up this legislation. If it had just fixed the foreign crew issue in this legislation that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection flagged as a 'gaping hole' in the regime at our ports and airports, this bill would have already been passed. Let's take no lectures from Mr Morrison on national security legislation. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

I also want to point out that the government, which sets the agenda in the Senate, found time this year to prioritise superyacht legislation. It's great that the Senate has dealt with superyachts! We have not yet dealt with national security clearances at our ports and our airports. They set the agenda, they allocate the time and they make those decisions. Why have they prioritised superyacht legislation over the fundamental need to have appropriate security clearance regimes in place at our ports and airports?

Yesterday Minister Michaelia Cash made statements that foreign crew are constantly supervised—that they must be always supervised at maritime ports when they are in a secure area. My question to the minister at the table is: can she confirm that foreign crew do not require additional security checks because they will always be under constant supervision while they are in a maritime port?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that anyone seeking to have unescorted access to secure areas of both our airports and our seaports must have an ASIC or an MSIC regardless of their nationality. Again, as per yesterday, Senator Keneally is deliberately seeking to muddy the waters. There is no Australian government requirement for all Australian seafarers to hold an MSIC.

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

I never said there was. Did I ever say there was a requirement for every Australian port worker to hold an MSIC? Of course not. The minister came in late to this. I will forgive her for that misstatement because she is new to this debate; she was not at the table yesterday.

I'd like to flag for the minister that the Panama flagged Glorious Plumeria, carrying woodchips, arrived at Corio Quay in Geelong on Friday. Yesterday Senator Seselja confirmed that the Geelong port is a secure zone and that all people in the zone are required to have an MSIC or be escorted by an officer who has an MSIC. That is the advice we received from Senator Seselja yesterday. If the government needs to correct that advice, I'd be happy to hear it.

The Glorious Plumeria was docked about 500 metres from the port's main security station. At approximately 2 am on Sunday 13 June, two sailors, who have only been described in media reports as 'Asian', reportedly crept at pace down a gangway and a set of stairs before disappearing into the night. This is on Sunday 13 June, a few days ago—not last year and not in 2016 but a couple of days ago. After that, it's speculated these two sailors jumped onto the beach and escaped along the foreshore or scaled a standard barbed wire fence to make their getaway. At the time the Australian Border Force did not alert the local community.

I understand the Australian Border Force took 19 hours to respond to questions from the Geelong Advertiser but refused to answer these questions. I'm advised the ABF only responded with:

The Australian Border Force (ABF) is aware of two foreign nationals who absconded from a commercial vessel that arrived in North Geelong port on Friday—

11 June 2021. The ABF said they were 'closely working with state and federal authorities'. The ABF has not provided any updates via Twitter or on its media release. This goes to the very point that the opposition and crossbench have been arguing—that the checks and the security arrangements, when it comes to foreign crew at our maritime ports, are not sufficient. Yesterday Minister Cash and Minister Seselja both repeatedly claimed that foreign crew did not require additional security checks, because they would always be under constant supervision while in port. Senator Cash said:

Maritime crew visa holders who do not hold an MSIC are required to be escorted and monitored by an MSIC holder at all times whilst in a restricted zone of a seaport.

Senator Seselja said:

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.

Yet, just a few days ago, we had two foreign crew absconding, and it seems the ABF don't know where they are, what's happening or how it happened. So my first question to the minister is: who are the men that the Australian Border Force are now searching for?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the question of the crew desertions, I will make two points. I will come to the identity, because I do have some further information for the chamber on that. But I would again counsel Labor against deliberately conflating two very separate issues. You've got the maritime crew visas, of which the two crew members mentioned were holders, and I understand those visas have now been cancelled. Again you are conflating it with the requirement for an MSIC. As Senator Seselja said yesterday, as I understand it, part of the port of Geelong is a secured area, but part of it is not. Regardless, any foreign crew need to have a visa. Through you, Chair: Senator Keneally can keep filibustering by being completely insulting to the minister, to the Prime Minister and to many others, but it does not change the fact that those opposite have had five years to consider this legislation, and endless filibustering does not make our ports any safer.

In relation to the detail of the incident that you raised, that of the Glorious Plumeria, the two crew that deserted over the weekend are Vietnamese nationals. At approximately 10 o'clock yesterday, ABF, VicPol and DHHS were notified that these two members were unaccounted for during their morning crew muster. ABF officers boarded the vessel to conduct the master's questionnaire and relevant ship search at approximately midday—just after midday. ABF officers cancelled or ceased the crew members' visas. The master advised the ABF that the crew were in possession of their passports, which they had obtained from the master's cabin, where the passports had been secured. The master advised that one of the missing crew cleans the master's cabin daily and noted that that was likely how he had obtained the two passports.

Investigations remain ongoing. Senator Keneally, your concern about the time it took the ABF to get back to the Geelong Advertiser is noted. But I would also note that their primary responsibility is to do exactly what they did yesterday: to work with VicPol and other relevant authorities to investigate this. Again, it is a valiant effort you are putting up to filibuster on this and to conflate these two issues, but they are two separate issues.

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

Here we have it again—the government trying to say that, somehow, they're not responsible for the fact this bill, in various forms—

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

Five years—exactly, Minister.

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

I will take that interjection from the minister. She seems not to have listened to the fact that it was her government that allowed this bill to lapse at the 2016 election. They didn't bring it forward for a vote. Minister, how can Labor be holding up something that your government doesn't bring forward for a vote? Further, your government let it lapse at the 2019 election. The Morrison government let this bill lapse at the 2019 election, after Labor had already voted for it. It was amended, and, in a fit of petulance and stubbornness, the Morrison government didn't accept the amendments. They didn't even deal with them; they just let the bill lapse. Let's understand this, Minister: this bill would be law today if your government had not let it lapse at two elections.

So don't talk about filibustering. Your government did not even prioritise this legislation. You put time in for the superyacht legislation, but you didn't put time in for this one.

Senator Reynolds interjecting—

Here we have a minister who, with her constant little interjections over there, doesn't seem to understand the basic facts. Yes, this bill has been hanging around for five years, because they let it hang around for five years. They haven't done the work. They mismanaged it. They amended their own bill halfway through the parliamentary debate.

Don't sit here and lecture the opposition and the crossbench for applying appropriate scrutiny. I think it is reasonable to have more than one hour of debate on a piece of national security legislation, especially when we have a circumstance that makes the very point that the opposition and crossbench have been raising, and that is that the regime that exists around maritime crew visas is not sufficient. These aren't my words, Minister; these are the words of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. In 2017 it made clear that the regulatory regime and the practices around foreign crew allow for the importation of drugs, weapons and other illegal activities, and this bill doesn't do anything about solving that—it doesn't.

In fact, what have we seen? Your government and your border protection in the last few days have seen foreign crew abscond from a ship in an Australian port. If you think I'm not going to raise that, you've got to be kidding. This is the fundamental part of the bill. The minister just provided some additional information about these two crew members on the Glorious Plumeria. I thank her for the information. It's a pity it couldn't have been provided to the Geelong Advertiser, who I'm sure are watching this debate and may well be able to make use of that information, since they didn't get it through their inquiries, because the local community in Geelong are interested in this; Australians are interested in this. How is it the case that our borders are so porous that two crew members can just wander off a ship?

The minister said in her answer that somehow these two crew members got hold of their passports while one of them was cleaning the master's cabin. I believe that is the information she provided. It's my understanding that these passports are meant to be held in a safe on board a ship. Is the minister saying that the passports were not being held as they should have been on the vessel?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no more information to provide than that that I've already given this chamber, and any further details will of course be the subject of the AFP and Victoria Police inquiry. Can I address what Senator Keneally has also alleged, saying that this legislation does nothing to fix the serious problems that we have at our ports? That is simply and utterly not true. Instead of calling for endless reviews, which Labor does all the time, I can confirm that we know there are over 200 individuals with links to serious and organised crime holding ASICs and MSICs, and I believe up to 70 per cent of those actually hold the MSIC. These individuals can currently access secure and sensitive areas of airports and seaports without supervision. We also know that serious and organised criminals use our airports and seaports as transit points to import weapons, illicit drugs and other harmful goods into Australia. Trafficking of these illegal goods puts Australian security and prosperity and the welfare of our communities at great risk.

This bill, contrary to what Senator Keneally has just said, will establish a regulatory framework that ensures that people convicted of serious offences or with known links to serious and organised crime groups will be ineligible to hold an ASIC or MSIC. These amendments will also provide ACIC with the ability to conduct criminal intelligence assessments for use in background checks on both cards. This is important. It is clearly needed, and this government is keen to get this through as soon as possible. No more stalling. No more delay tactics from those opposite. This bill must be passed.

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

Labor thinks this is a good bill. We just think it should be strengthened. There's no review being called for here. The only review that got called for by this Senate was because your government, the Morrison government, didn't present their legislation fully formed to the parliament; they amended it after they introduced it. It is laughable that the government sit here and insist that somehow this is some kind of model legislative process they've gone through and the rest of us are just standing in the way. What we are trying to do here is deal with what you put forward, which was a half-formed piece of legislation. You amended it halfway through the legislative process. We've held an additional inquiry, supported by the crossbench in the Senate. We think this bill should be strengthened. We're not calling for an additional review.

The point of the amendment we are debating right now, for those who are watching this debate at home, is to actually facilitate the implementation of the ASIC as soon as possible and to invite the government to fix what the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2017 said was a hole in our maritime port security when it came to foreign crew. Again, I'm not making this claim. Senator Sheldon isn't making it. Senator Rice isn't making it. Senator Hanson isn't making it. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is making it. We take that seriously. Whether they take that seriously is up to them, and we'll see, when we vote on this amendment, where they come down.

What I would like to ask the minister about these two foreign crew who have, on Sunday, walked off a ship in a secure port there in Geelong is: is there any information she can provide the parliament as to whether or not these men pose a risk to the community, if they pose a COVID risk to the community and if it is known why the men left the ship?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said, I can't confirm any more than I currently have, but I am absolutely confident that between the Victoria Police and the ABF they will be conducting all necessary inquiries into that matter. Again, that matter, while important—and it's important for ABF and law enforcement to deal with—is detracting very effectively, I would argue, from Labor's calls to split the aviation and maritime sections of the bill. Can I just remind all in this chamber that serious crime is a major threat to the Australian way of life and it causes enormous human suffering.

In relation to your call to split the aviation and maritime sections of this bill, of the 227 ASIC and MSIC holders 73 per cent are in the maritime sector, and, by Labor seeking to split the bill, the vast majority of card holders the ACIC has serious concerns over—that is, those with a history of serious and organised crime—will continue to have unsupervised access to maritime secure areas. It should be of great concern to all Australians that it is the Labor Party who are seeking to have them exempted by the application of their amendments, and I think that is absolutely outrageous. Kilograms of illicit goods enter Australia through airports but tonnes enter through containers through our seaports. We have to close off all entry points to trusted insiders and serious criminals, not just those in the aviation sector. Otherwise, organised criminals will continue to exploit Australia's ports. There will be only one party to blame for that, and that is the Labor Party, which is seeking to split this bill and water down the impact of this legislation.

Senator Keneally, if you really support this legislation—through you, Mr Temporary Chair—Labor will stop filibustering, you will stop playing games with this bill and you will pass the bill so that we can get on and actually make our airports and our seaports more secure.

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

Well, that's amusing, isn't it? We've just been told that we're closing off entry points. It is simply not true. I appreciate the fact that the minister has not been informed yesterday or the day before of the answers that were given yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon regarding this subject, because you aren't closing off all the entry points. In actual fact, Senator Seselja said:

An MCV—

a Maritime Crew visa—

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.

What Senator Cash quite clearly said was:

Maritime crew visa holders who do not hold an MSIC are required to be escorted and monitored by an MSIC holder at all times whilst in a restricted zone of a seaport.

What has happened at Geelong? Two foreign crew, who have not been MSIC checked, who have not had the more rigorous check, have now absconded into the Australian community. What was the response from the government and the ABF? It's taken them days to start responding to the Geelong Advertiser, days to start making public announcements about what is happening with those two individuals and days to give any sort of indication as to who these people are. What's particularly worrying is the government's politicising of the ABF. You would have thought that, when two people were found to have absconded from a ship, the government would have notified the public and asked for the public's involvement. But they didn't do that because they wanted to hush it up. National security is not an issue when they want to hush something up. Quite clearly, this government is making sure that there is still access to our ports for foreign crews who are carrying out criminal activities—gun running and the sorts of things that put our country in jeopardy.

At this point, those two people and what their motivation is haven't been identified. But what has been demonstrated is that they could have been terrorists, they could have been importing drugs or they could have been gun running. What do ABF do? They don't notify the public. These are the people at the forefront of national security, yet they don't notify the public that there has been a breach of our national borders. They hush it up because of politics—not in the interests of national security but because they wanted to make sure they weren't held to account for the failings in the system which we've been highlighting in the past 24 hours.

It is critical that these maritime crew visas be upgraded and reviewed, and not only in light of the fact of what's happened in Geelong. As we discussed yesterday, last year Rio Tinto had eight ships off Queensland. Four were Australian vessels with Australian crew with MSIC passes, the high background checks. The four others were flag-of-convenience vessels with foreign crew and low security checks. If you want our borders to be secure then make them secure by making sure the standards apply to foreign crews as well. That will protect the community. That will protect all Australians.

To go back to the case in Geelong, we have seen Border Force refuse to give details of the two Asian sailors who are still at large after abandoning ship in Geelong, something that is keeping the community on edge over whether the duo is dangerous or carrying COVID-19. That's from a report just this morning in the Geelong Advertiser. So here's the Advertiser, a major communication network, making sure it announces it to the public, to the local community in Geelong—'Keep an eye out; this is critical'—while the government keep trying to hush it up. They haven't made people in Geelong aware for many, many hours and, of course, there's still no detail. 'But don't worry,' we heard yesterday. 'We don't have to actually escort a foreign crew member on a maritime crew visa, because they're supervised by somebody on an MSIC card.' One of the comments made in the Geelong Advertiser, which I take to be accurate, was:

It's understood security footage showed the pair creep at pace down a gangway and set of stairs before disappearing into the night.

Where was the surveillance? It wasn't there.

The thing that's particularly disturbing about this is that over the past five years we've had evidence and more evidence about these foreign crews breaching security at our ports. Of course, the government didn't act. Why didn't they act? Because they say that it's too complicated and it actually involves too many resources.

Here is a government that has the hide to say it is protecting our borders. It didn't notify the local community for many hours. It still hasn't given details days after these people absconded. Here is a government that has turned around and said that it's too expensive to make sure our border is secure. When we're talking about potential gun running, terrorist activities and drug running is it too expensive? They do not have a system in place. This amendment proposes the government having a system in place that is properly considered to make sure our ports are protected and we have security at our ports.

In the last days they have said that there's a conspiracy about why we want changes. Why we want changes is self-evident. We want changes because they secure our borders, they secure Geelong and they secure our community. As I raised yesterday, we have large amounts of ammonium nitrate being moved around on coastal shipping by foreign crews. None of them are security checked. Only about a third of that tonnage of ammonium nitrate was involved in the unfortunate incident in Beirut that caused the devastation and terrible loss of life. It was horrific. If that were to get in the hands of a terrorist, it would be extremely horrific in any country, but particularly this country. But they say, 'Don't worry; we haven't done security checks on them.'

We get 24 or 48 hours notice that these people have been given a low-level security check. We've seen in Geelong how that low-level security check works. It doesn't work. We've seen in Geelong how the supervision and oversight of people who don't have MSICs doesn't work. We've seen another instance where our borders have been put at risk by this government's lack of action. They're hiding behind politics and engaging in cheap political point-scoring rather than making a decision to make our borders secure and support the very sensible amendment that has been put up by Labor. We will secure our borders. We will protect our borders. We will protect them from foreign seafarers, not only Australian seafarers, if there is a concern.

Quite clearly, the government has failed to act in an appropriate way to make sure the border is protected. As I said, we've seen the Rio Tinto example and we've seen examples at the RRAT inquiry. In response to question on notice No. 3 in the RRAT inquiry, Home Affairs also admitted that foreign crew are not subjected to routine—as we've seen—bag checks or inspections for drugs, weapons or other contraband. There are no metal detectors to detect other weapons being imported into the country and no checks by drug detector dogs. These are the people protecting our border. They talk about the ways and means of securing our borders. Instead of pretending to secure our borders, they should be.

Minister, is it the government's intention to review the maritime crew visa? I noted yesterday that they said they have not done a review of the maritime crew visa whilst doing an assessment of what should happen at our ports and security. They are leaving the bulk of the people left behind. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've noted several times now, there is only one gaping hole in this chamber, and that is Labor's lack of support for this critically important bill. Labor have filibustered—and both senators this morning have continued their heroic efforts to filibuster on this bill—and have tried to water down the bill by splitting it.

In relation to some of your comments or your assertions, Senator Sheldon, I think it is highly insulting and in fact demeaning to be so rude about the ABF staff and criticise their professionalism. They do an extraordinary job for our nation. In relation to some of your assertions, ABF officers do conduct regular visits to any vessel of interest. They do conduct regular wharf patrols and provide a high-visibility presence. They maintain a periodical or permanent ABF-marked-vehicle presence at the gangways and they also seek continuous CCTV monitoring of vessel gangways by the Customs National Monitoring Centre. In response to all of your assertions about their competence, they do a magnificent job on behalf of our nation and they do take security of our ports seriously.

Again, there's only one side of politics that's seeking to delay this bill or to have this bill not pass the Senate, and that's Labor. As I've said, of 227 ASIC and MSIC cardholders of concern to the ACIC, 73 per cent are in the maritime sector. This is exactly the reason we want this bill passed, so that we can implement these measures and so that law enforcement can make sure that people like that no longer have access to secure areas of our ports. As Labor keeps conflating them, let me be very clear: we're talking about these cards in the secure areas of our ports, not the more general access that we're talking about through the MCVs.

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

The minister has made several statements about the ACIC assessments in maritime ports. The very amendment that we are dealing with, which is my amendment on sheet 1117, actually only deals with schedule 1. If the amendment were accepted, it won't deal with schedule 2, which means that the criminal intelligence matters that you point out can go ahead in maritime ports. Unfortunately, I don't think the minister has properly read the amendment and I think that demonstrates yet again the lack of attention to detail the government has when it comes to this legislation. They let the bill lapse in 2016, they let the bill lapse in 2019. They brought it to the parliament in this term of parliament, the 46th Parliament, and then they amended their own legislation halfway through, causing the Senate, including the crossbench, to vote for an additional inquiry.

They don't seem to understand that what Labor is seeking to do here is to take what we see as a good bill and make it better. That's what this is about: strengthening the security clearances at our borders. We say their bill has good intention. We supported it in the 45th Parliament. It's not our fault that the Morrison Government let the bill lapse in 45th Parliament. They control the agenda; they determine what legislation goes forward. They let it lapse. They write the bills. In the 46th Parliament, this parliament, they presented a bill that was half-finished. They amended it part way through. The amendment that I'm moving would allow the entire regime to be implemented immediately for aviation. It only affects schedule 1, not schedule 2, so the concerns the minister raises around criminal intelligence assessments can be dealt with for maritime workers as well. What we're seeking to do is to get the government to acknowledge what the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection had already said. The minister wasn't here yesterday, so let me make clear for her what the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection told the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in 2017. I note no minister has wanted to touch this advice with a barge pole in this debate. They seem to want to ignore the fact that a national security agency, one that is concerned with border security, has given clear evidence to this chamber that there's a hole in our border security. The minister says that somehow the hole exists from the opposition crossbench asking legitimate questions. Let me read to the minister what the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection said to this chamber in 2017:

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 …

That is the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

My question to the minister—and two ministers ducked this yesterday—is this: does the government accept this advice of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection? Can the government point to any steps they have taken since 2017 to improve the security arrangements around flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew?

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Government Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is imperative that this government put measures in place to prevent serious and organised 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 does acknowledge that flag-of-convenience ships can also pose a risk to the maritime environment that can be exploited by these very same organised crime groups. The government regularly reviews the aviation and maritime environments to address all vulnerabilities and to strengthen aviation and maritime security.

In relation to Senator Keneally's comments about the government, can I point out some of the facts about Senator Keneally's amendments and her attempt, on behalf of Labor, to water down this bill very significantly. Senator Keneally's amendment links the commencement of this bill to her own private member's bill, the Migration Amendment (New Maritime Crew Visas) Bill 2020, which proposes amendments to the maritime crew visa. The new MCV bill provides that the transport security amendment bill would only commence on the passage of her own bill.

The vast majority of MCV holders do not require unescorted access to maritime security zones—again, I remind those opposite that these are two different issues that you are valiantly trying to conflate—and requiring visa holders to comply with elements of the MSIC scheme could pose a significant financial burden on the administration of the MCV scheme for absolutely no discernible benefit. It would cause a completely unacceptable level of uncertainty and further delay for industry for the government to link both the MCV and the MSIC as well as the commencement of the bills. This is just another delaying tactic by those opposite. I would just say, please just pass the bill, stop filibustering and stop playing games, so that we can get on and deal with the ASIC and MSIC cards and get serious and organised criminals out of our secure areas in our ports, airports and seaports.

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

I want to go to a couple of things the minister has just stated in answering a series of questions, including those ones there. They don't want maritime crew visas to be at the same level as Australian crew visa checks. They have said clearly, as I've already stated to Senator Seselja and Senator Cash yesterday, that both of them recognise the fact that the MCV is a dud scheme. It's a scheme that does not give the same virility that we require for ASICs and MSICs, and specifically on our ports. One of the reasons they keep pressing, and the minister keeps pressing now, is that we have surveillance. People don't turn around and walk onto a wharf because they have criminal activity in mind. They go and get an MSIC or an ASIC.

Now, quite clearly, when we're dealing with security on our ports, we have to look at the serious nature of those people who are on the ships. It is a serious issue. I remind the minister that on 12 March 2021 exceptionally good work was done, as I recognised yesterday, by the Australian Federal Police, the ABF and New South Wales State Crime Command when they intercepted 200 kilos of cocaine. How did they intercept it? They intercepted it in a number of ways. What became clear is that those drugs were being dropped off the back of the ship—that's what the report says—to a daughter ship. That is the language they used. That boat then brought in the drugs. The crew members who handed over the drugs and were part of the arrangement were people who did not have a requirement to have appropriate and proper security checks done and would not have a capacity to have this done if the government were to pass the amendment.

This is about actually making sure that our ports are secure and that there are proper assessments—not an assessment, but proper assessments—ones that actually make sure that our borders are appropriately and properly protected. We've seen a series of questions that were raised by the Border Force, and I take the minister on face value. I have a lot of time for Border Force, but I have to say this: one of two things happened in Geelong. Either Border Force has been failing on the job or the government has interfered in the notification regarding this incident at this particular port, because they still have not turned around and answered a series of important questions raised by their community. A series of critical issues raised the things that need to be known in the Geelong community to make a difference.

It's incredibly important that people in Geelong have confidence that we have a proper system, as we have in the rest of Australia—a system that actually can make sure that those crew members have been checked and that, when something's dropped off the back of a ship, we have a chance to turn around and find the potential culprits before any culprits are involved. It's important that we turn around and have those unescorted crew members from foreign crews properly checked. It is a bit of a no-brainer. If you're a criminal, you don't get an ASIC or an MSIC; you don't apply for one. They're saying, 'Let's leave to it the criminals to decide whether they should have a higher degree of security check.' Can you believe it? We're going to ask the criminals whether they want to have a higher security check. Guess what the answer will be? No. It's obvious. It's what happens. It's practical. I don't even have to watch crime shows to know that. It's just common sense.

The government have to turn around and have a proper approach and a proper understanding of how they're dealing with these issues. They need to make sure, whether it be with Rio Tinto last year off the coast of Queensland, where four ships turned around and had MSIC security checks, because Australian crewed ships, including the companies they work for, are very mindful of the necessity for and the capacity of crew members to move around areas unescorted. They're also very mindful that there will be a higher level of scrutiny of the people who are on their ships. But what do we do when it comes to foreign ships? We say, 'We don't care. Rip it and burn.' No, sorry, we don't quite say that. We say, 'If you're a criminal, you can apply for one and be more highly security checked.' It is ludicrous!

From answers from questions yesterday, we quite clearly have the situation in our ports now where dozens of people can be not security checked up to the standard that's required. They can be on an MCV. They can be moving on and off our ports. But don't worry, as the minister said in the answer to one of questions earlier from Senator Keneally, not only do we close off all entry points—it didn't happen in Geelong; it didn't actually happen off the coast of Queensland last year either; it didn't happen in Port Botany. We haven't closed off all the points. In actual fact, you've got a ripping hole in the security of our country because you're not turning around and taking an appropriate stance on what is a very practical and sensible proposition from Labor. Why aren't they doing it? Are they covering up for cocaine dealers? I don't think that's correct. Are they not doing it because they don't care about terrorists coming into the country? I hope that's not correct. Are they not doing it because they want gun runners to be able to come into the country and run guns? I hope that's not correct. But I tell you what: as a consequence of what you're doing, it is correct. You've left our borders open. You've left the opportunities for turnaround and for these criminal gangs to operate in a fashion appropriate for them. Case after case after case proves the weaknesses within the border security arrangements that you have. The intention of this amendment is to make sure that those weaknesses are dealt with.

I want to ask this question of the minister: are the security arrangements adequate at Geelong port when it was said some days later to the Advertiser, 'We saw in security footage that the pair had crept at pace down a gangway and set of stairs before disappearing into the night'?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sheldon, I understand that you have asked several questions in relation to this matter that have been responded to by Minister Reynolds. I will reiterate what previous ministers have said, because obviously now we're in the filibuster to end all filibusters on what is an incredibly important bill, which I understand your caucus has agreed should pass this place. We'll wait and see if that actually does occur.

As previous ministers have responded to you in relation to questions of this nature that you have continually put this morning, the Australian Border Force are working with the Victoria Police, otherwise known as VicPol. You are continuing to conflate the issues, and that's fine. You and I had this discussion yesterday in terms of the conflation of the issues. I understand you may have had a similar discussion with Senator Seselja last night. I was sitting outside for a short period of time. You had a similar discussion with Minister Reynolds this morning, as is your right.

I can also advise, as Minister Reynolds has already advised, that, in relation to the questions that are being put, Australian Border Force officers conduct regular visits to any vessel of interest. Australian Border Force officers conduct regular wharf patrols and provide a high-visibility presence, maintaining a periodical or permanent Australian Border Force marked vehicle presence at the gangway. They seek continuous CCTV monitoring by the national monitoring centre of vessel gangways. If a crew member leaves a vessel in contravention of the restriction on board then local police authorities and/or port security will be contacted to effect the relevant state government health response. After that, the only thing I can add is to reiterate what Minister Reynolds has said several times today: the Australian Border Force are working with the Victoria Police, otherwise known as VicPol.

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

I will be brief. I want to turn the minister to answering a question which I raised with her just then. There have been questions raised about security lapses, particularly in the last 24 hours but also over the last five years in a series of inquiries. The particular lapse that I'm asking you about is the Geelong port lapse. I'm asking specifically about Geelong port: is the security adequate at Geelong port?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will repeat my answer for the benefit of Hansard. As previous ministers have stated, as Minister Reynolds has read into the Hansard record and as I have already responded to you, Senator Sheldon, my answer does not change. I am advised as follows: the Australian Border Force are working with the Victoria Police. As I said, they are often referred to as VicPol.

In terms of the further information that I can provide to you, I can also advise as follows: Australian Border Force officers conduct regular visits to any vessel of interest. Australian Border Force officers conduct regular wharf patrols and provide a high-visibility presence, maintaining a periodical or permanent Australian Border Force marked vehicle presence at the gangway. They seek continuous CCTV monitoring by the national monitoring centre of vessel gangways. If a crew member leaves a vessel in contravention of the restriction on board, noting that they can leave the vessel to conduct essential tasks as long as they are wearing PPE, then local police authorities and/or port security will be contacted to effect the relevant state government health response. But, again, I understand Minister Reynolds has already advised this on several occasions, in responding to your questions, and I will again reiterate for the Hansard record: I am advised in response to your question that the Australian Border Force are working with the Victorian police.

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

I thank Minister Cash for coming into the chamber and providing some advice. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree with the government. I just want to say, for the record—it still stands, throughout this debate—that it seems clear that the government has not taken on board the advice provided by the former Department of Immigration and Border Protection to this Senate in 2017 that flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew pose risks and that there are arrangements, in terms of regulation and practice, that make those vessels and those crew attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime and terrorist groups. The government hasn't taken that advice, and there's nothing in this legislation that addresses that risk. It's clear the government has no intention of putting anything in place, either in this legislation or anywhere else, to address that risk. The purpose of this amendment is to try and give the government an opportunity to address that risk. They already fixed up this legislation once, when they introduced it into the parliament. They could have amended it again. They could have come up with their own scheme. They haven't done that.

Let's be clear what the vote we are about to have on this amendment is. It is this Liberal-National government, Mr Morrison's government, that is refusing to put in place any measures, either in this bill or indeed where it should appropriately lie, in other legislation that deals with visas, to ensure that we are addressing the risk that was highlighted to this Senate by the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection. We have had example after example presented in this debate. There is Captain Salas, who the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection—now the Australian Border Force—have had holdings about since 1994, who's been wanted by the New South Wales coroner since 2012 for questioning, who gave evidence on the record and yet somehow was allowed to come back into Australia, to the ports of Weipa and Gladstone in 2016, despite the fact he gave evidence about his illegal and illicit activities, despite the fact he was wanted by the coroner for some years before he gave that evidence, and despite the fact the department of immigration had information about him, which they stated in evidence, since 1994. We know that the North Korean government were using flag-of-convenience vessels to smuggle weapons, including 30,000 rocket grenades. That was revealed in August 2017. We know the Tongan government was recently forced to shutter their own flag-of-convenience vessels because it was shown that al-Qaeda owned the vessels and were using the lax arrangements at maritime ports to transport weapons, ammunition and crew to Europe.

Labor has sought a sensible solution here—to amend schedule 1 of this bill, to allow the entire regime to go ahead for aviation card holders, for the ASIC holders, and to allow schedule 2 to proceed for maritime, to allow for the intelligence assessments to proceed, to simply allow the government to have the ability to strengthen this bill, to deal with these very risks that have been highlighted now. When this vote occurs on this amendment, let's be clear what we're voting on, and, for those who vote against the amendment, let's be clear what they're saying: they're disregarding the risks posed by flag-of-convenience vessels and foreign crew.

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1117, as revised and moved by Senator Keneally, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move revised opposition amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 1022:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:

2A Section 9

Insert:

serious crime has the meaning given by section 38AC.

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 17), at the end of Division 4A, add:

38AC Definition of serious crime

(1) For the purposes of this Division, serious crime means conduct that, if engaged in within, or in connection with, Australia, would constitute an offence prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of the definition of serious crime must not prescribe an offence unless the offence is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

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

4A Before Division 5 of Part 3

Insert:

Division 4B—Renewal of security passes

38AD Renewal of security passes for access to certain areas and zones

(1) If the regulations provide for a process to issue a security pass (an ASIC) to a person for the purposes of accessing certain areas and zones (whether the security pass is known as an aviation security identification card or otherwise), the regulations must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The regulations must provide that a person who has been issued an ASIC may apply for the renewal of the person's ASIC before it expires.

(3) The regulations, in providing for the renewal of an ASIC, must provide:

(a) that a decision to renew or refuse to renew an ASIC must be made within 60 days of the decision maker receiving the application for renewal; and

(b) that if the decision maker does not make a decision to renew or refuse to renew within 60 days of receiving the application, then the decision maker is taken to have renewed the ASIC at the end of that period.

(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 20), after item 5, insert:

5A At the end of subsection 126(2)

Add:

Note: For a person's notification and review rights in relation to an adverse or qualified security assessment, see section 38 and Division 4 of Part IV of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

5B After section 126

Insert:

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

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, for the purposes of 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 (requirements for airside areas);

(b) section 36 (requirements for airside security zones);

(c) section 36A (requirements for airside event zones);

(d) section 37 (requirements for landside areas);

(e) section 38 (requirements for landside security zones);

(f) section 38A (requirements for landside event zones);

(g) section 38AB (requirements relating to access to areas and zones).

(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 relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

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

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

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

(a) the relevant Secretary 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 has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

qualified security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

relevant Secretary means:

(a) the Secretary of the Department; or

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

126B Regulations may provide for review or reconsideration of additional matters

To avoid doubt, the regulations may provide for the review or reconsideration of matters not provided for in this Part.

(5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 31), after item 7, insert:

7A Section 10

Insert:

serious crime has the meaning given by section 113G.

(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (after line 12), at the end of Division 6, add:

113G Definition of serious crime

(1) For the purposes of this Division, serious crime means conduct that, if engaged in within, or in connection with, Australia, would constitute an offence prescribed by the regulations.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of the definition of serious crime must not prescribe an offence unless the offence is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by imprisonment for a period of 3 years or more.

(7) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 12), after item 17, insert:

17A At the end of Part 6

Add:

Division 7—Renewal of security passes

113H Renewal of security passes for access to certain zones

(1) If the regulations provide for a process to issue a security pass (an MSIC) to a person for the purposes of accessing certain areas and zones (whether the security pass is known as a maritime security identification card or otherwise), the regulations must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The regulations must provide that a person who has been issued an MSIC may apply for the renewal of the person's MSIC before it expires.

(3) The regulations, in providing for the renewal of an MSIC, must provide:

(a) that a decision to renew or refuse to renew a MSIC must be made within 60 days of the decision maker receiving the application for renewal; and

(b) that if the decision maker does not make a decision to renew or refuse to renew within 60 days of receiving the application, then the decision maker is taken to have renewed the MSIC at the end of that period.

(8) Schedule 1, page 7, after proposed item 17A, insert:

17B 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, for the purposes of any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to a zone:

(a) section 105 (requirements for port security zones);

(b) section 109 (requirements for ship security zones);

(c) section 113 (requirements for on-board security zones);

(d) section 113D (requirements for offshore security zones);

(e) section 113F (requirements relating to access to zones).

(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 relevant Secretary of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

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

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

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

(a) the relevant Secretary 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 has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

qualified security assessment has the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

relevant Secretary means:

(a) the Secretary of the Department; or

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

201B Regulations may provide for review or reconsideration of additional matters

To avoid doubt, the regulations may provide for the review or reconsideration of matters not provided for in this Part.

I advise the chamber that the reason for this amendment is, despite the fact that this bill has in its definition that it is about serious crime, it actually lacks a definition of what serious crime is. Here we have a bill about transport security that's supposed to deal with serious crime, and it's not clear what serious crime is under this legislation. It's fair enough to raise this, because there are 12 different definitions of serious crime across different Commonwealth acts and regulations. While we accept that the government intends to propose a tiered scheme for this legislation, Labor's amendment proposes that minor crimes not be included in the regulations by the government. We think a bill that purports to deal with serious crime should deal with serious crime. Therefore, this amendment defines serious crime as a crime that is punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of at least three years. This is consistent with the definition of serious crime in the citizenship cessation bill currently before the parliament. Labor does believe, and we invite members of this chamber to agree, that it's reasonable to include a definition in the legislation of serious crime. We note the government have not provided a definition, and we seek to insert one. We look forward to support from the chamber for this amendment.

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

We have an indication from Senator Griff that he wishes to vote differently on different parts of these amendments. Could we, for Senator Griff's sake, vote on (1), (2), (4), (5), (6) and (8) as one block and then (3) and (7) as another block?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking leave?

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

I am seeking leave. I didn't think I had to, but—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I understand that you don't need leave, but leave appears to be granted! Minister?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll make a brief response in the interests of time, because I understand we can start moving through the bill. The government will not be supporting the amendments proposed in sheet 1022, on the basis that they are unnecessary and would create loopholes in the ASIC and MSIC scheme that criminal entities could seek to exploit.

The CHAIR: The amendments moved by Senator Keneally on 1022 revised have been split into two groups. I'm putting the question first on amendments (1), (2), (4), (5), (6) and (8).

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that items (3) to (7) on sheet 1022, revised and as moved by Senator Keneally, be agreed to.

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

I advise the chamber that I had intended to move the amendments on sheets 1097 and 1099 standing in my name jointly for the efficiency of the chamber, but I am now advised that Senator Griff seeks to vote differently on those two amendments, so I advise the chamber that we will move them separately in order to accommodate Senator Griff.

I will first move the amendment on sheet 1097. For the clarity of the chamber, this is to institute a statutory independent review of the legislation within the first two years of its operation, followed by further independent reviews every five years. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1097:

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act as soon as practicable after the end of two years after this Act commences.

(2) Further independent reviews of the operation of the amendments made by this Act must be made as soon as practicable after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act and at five yearly intervals thereafter.

(3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of each review mentioned in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of each review mentioned in subsections (1) and (2) to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

Question agreed to.

I thank the chamber for its support for that amendment. I would also like to notify the chamber that I do not intend to move opposition amendments on sheets 1067 and 1098.

I now seek to move the amendment on sheet 1099. For the clarity of the chamber, this is an amendment that seeks to expand the role of IGIS, the independent inspector, to include oversight of the ACIC. This was recommended by the 2017 intelligence review. Despite the government claiming to accept that recommendation, it's taken over three years to finally introduce legislation to implement it. But they have continued to give the ACIC new functions and new powers. Given the nature of the ACIC's work and the potential impact it can have on fundamental rights and freedoms, this amendment seeks to ensure the ACIC's intelligence related work is subject to the same degree of rigorous oversight as that of other intelligence agencies. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1099:

(1) Schedule 2, page 28 (after line 21), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Inspector -General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986

11 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

ACC means the Australian Crime Commission established by section 7 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.

Note: Subsection 7(1A) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 provides that the ACC may be known by one or more names or acronyms specified in regulations made under that Act. In July 2016, the ACC became known as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission or ACIC.

12 Subsection 3(1) (after paragraph (f) of the definition of head )

Insert:

(fa) in relation to ACC—the Chief Executive Officer of ACC; or

13 Subsection 3(1) (definition of intelligence agency )

Omit "or ONI", substitute ", ONI or ACC".

14 After subsection 8(3)

Insert:

(3A) Subject to this section, the functions of the Inspector-General in relation to ACC are:

(a) at the request of the Attorney-General or the responsible Minister, of the Inspector-General's own motion or in response to a complaint made to the Inspector-General by a person who is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident, to inquire into any matter that relates to:

  (i) the compliance by ACC with the laws of the Commonwealth and of the States and Territories; or

  (ii) the compliance by ACC with directions or guidelines given to ACC by the responsible Minister; or

  (iii) the propriety of particular activities of that agency; or

  (iv) an act or practice of ACC that is or may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right, that constitutes or may constitute discrimination, or that is or may be unlawful under the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, being an act or practice referred to the Inspector-General by the Australian Human Rights Commission; and

(b) at the request of the Attorney-General or the responsible Minister or of the Inspector-General's own motion, to inquire into the procedures of ACC relating to redress of grievances of employees of ACC; and

(c) at the request of the Attorney-General or the responsible Minister or of the Inspector-General's own motion, to inquire into the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures of that agency relating to the legality or propriety of the activities of that agency.

(3B) The Inspector-General's functions under subsection (3A) do not extend to inquiring into anything done by ACC to the extent that thing does not relate to its intelligence role or function.

15 Subsection 8(5)

Omit "and (3)", substitute ", (3) and (3A)".

16 Subsection 8(5)

Omit "AGO, DIO or ONI", substitute "ACC, AGO, DIO or ONI".

17 Paragraph 8A(4 ) ( a)

Omit "or ASD", substitute ", ASD or ACC".

18 Paragraph 15(3 ) ( a)

Omit "or ONI" (wherever occurring), substitute ", ONI or ACC".

19 Paragraph 21(1B ) ( a)

Omit "or ONI" (wherever occurring), substitute ", ONI or ACC".

20 Paragraph 32A(5 ) ( a)

Omit "and ONI", substitute ", ONI and ACC".

21 Subsection 32B(1)

Omit "or ONI", substitute ", ONI or ACC".

Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

22 Section 8 (at the end of the definition of intelligence agency )

Add:

; or (g) the Australian Crime Commission.

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1099, as moved by Senator Keneally, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.