Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006. On many of the things he said, I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Blaxland. It is essential regarding terrorism that we look into the future and not back to the past. It is important that any legislation enacted by this parliament is flexible in its nature so as to anticipate some of the things I think it is our sad duty to acknowledge are going to happen. You would be a very brave person if you were to predict when the war on terror, as we call it, was going to end. My fear is that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I think we will see more and more bills coming before this House to address issues that many of us have not even thought of yet. The actions of terrorists have no bounds, the extent of the terror has no bounds and we have to be prepared for any contingency. We must remember the reference in our history to the importance of eternal vigilance.

The bill is aimed at enhancing the capacity of maritime industry participants to deter and deal with unauthorised incursions into maritime security zones. Following a comprehensive review of Australia’s maritime security policy settings conducted by the Secretaries Committee on National Security, the government decided to enhance the powers of maritime security guards under the act by providing them with limited move-on powers. These powers acknowledge a key difference between maintaining security at our airports and maintaining security at our ports. We have heard a lot about airport security in recent times, but with airports people can be prevented from unauthorised access by the use of fences and monitored gates. The area is easier to contain. Ports are different by their very nature, being open on at least one side—that is, the water side.

By providing maritime security guards with the means to request that waterside intruders move on, the bill addresses this natural weakness in our port security. Under the existing act, maritime security guards may restrain an unauthorised person in a maritime security zone and detain him or her until law enforcement officers arrive, but they do not have the power to request identification, to ask the person why he or she is in the zone or to request that the person moves on. These are simple, basic security powers to prevent crime, threat and sabotage. Neither do maritime security guards currently have power to remove unauthorised vehicles or vessels. They have to call the police to do that.

The government believes that a faster and more convenient solution is needed to remove potential threats from a maritime security zone. To ensure this faster reaction to a potential threat, the key provisions of the bill are as follows. Firstly, that a maritime security guard may request that a person found within a security zone provides identification and a reason for being in the zone. Secondly, that a maritime security guard may request a person found in such a security zone without authority to move out of the secure zone; if they do not, the guard is empowered to remove the person. Thirdly, that a maritime security guard may remove or have removed any vehicles or vessels found in a maritime security zone without authorisation. Fourthly, to balance the authority being conferred on security guards, the bill provides safeguards to ensure the guards identify themselves and do not subject an intruder to greater force or greater indignity than is necessary.

To summarise, this bill empowers maritime security guards to ask a person who they are and what they intend doing in a secure area and, if necessary, to remove that person and any unauthorised vehicle without having to wait for police to come and do so. To me these provisions are commonsense precautions against possible threat. Being aware and the ability of authorised personnel to react quickly are essential in preventing security—possibly terrorist—threats.

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee conducted an inquiry into this bill, and its report was tabled in September last year. It recommended that this bill be passed in its present form. It has now been passed in the Senate and I am happy to commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context