Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 is exceptionally important because it goes to our security as a nation in the fight against terrorism. It is also about whether or not we are going to be committed to the employment of Australian seafarers, because it raises serious questions about the Howard government’s lack of commitment to promoting local employment, which is part and parcel of the fight against terrorism because of weaknesses in the system that currently exist. This is clearly reflected in the second reading amendment, moved by the member for Brisbane and shadow minister for homeland security.

In that context, the changes to the act—it is an act of 2003, so it is not all that old—going to maritime and transport offshore facility security ensure that threats from terrorist and criminal activity are minimised in the interests of national security. That is the objective of the amendment. Obviously they are changes that the Labor Party support as the opposition but we also say that they simply do not go far enough. This is not the first time we have raised in the House some of these weaknesses. In fact, as the person who in the last parliament was the shadow minister for transport, I can say that we raised a number of these issues in discussion with the government in the lead-up to the legislation being taken through the parliament. We have also raised them subsequently, both privately and publicly, as an opposition. The reason the opposition supports these changes is that they include simplified procedures for making changes to security plans, shorter statutory timeframes for approval of security plans—and how could you oppose these options?—technical amendments to clarify the intent of the act, a technical amendment to the related Customs Act 1901 and various consequential amendments to other acts.

I would emphasise the point I made in a similar debate last evening as to the priorities of the nation going to Indigenous employment and education—that is, unfortunately there are problems with the government’s commitments to its legislative priorities. There are serious questions about existing weaknesses in the maritime security legislative framework which could endanger the security of Australia in the foreseeable future; for example, think about the red alert that currently exists on aviation security in the United Kingdom and the United States. It is also interesting to note that unfortunately we are moving up to a further anniversary next week of September 11 and the devastation that event caused in the United States.

I think it is fair to say that the new, improved measures will benefit maritime transport and offshore facility security only if this government manages to implement them. There is a big difference between passing legislative change and implementing it in the field. Just as with Indigenous education, we the opposition have little confidence in the competence of this government in the area of maritime security. In the past, when it has been a supposed election issue—as with, for example, the question of Tampawe have had a number of government members wanting to talk on the issue of so-called maritime security. When it comes to doing something practical about it, it is interesting to examine the record and the seeming lack of willingness by government members to come in and talk about these legislative changes. Unfortunately this is becoming, all too often, the nature of the government’s performance—almost a sense of arrogance with regard to the role of parliament in addressing bills that are currently being debated in the House of Representatives. This is also, as has been noted by members of the opposition, flowing through to the performance of a range of members of government in their attendance at and participation in committees of the House of Representatives and the joint House committees in association with the Senate. I think the lack of attention to detail in terms of the legislative program by members of the government reflects a sense of arrogance and contempt for the parliament and a clear lack of commitment to doing something in a legislative sense and then following it through—putting pressure on the department to make sure that the changes, which are about the security of Australia, are fully implemented.

On that note, my colleague the member for Brisbane, who is respected in the maritime industry, has, because of his commitment to doing something about strengthening Australian borders, been forced to say in this place:

In the past the government has enacted legislation with the support of the Labor Party and then failed to properly administer it.

The reason he knows this is that not only does he participate in the debates and offer up practical suggestions; he also regularly goes around the country and not only talks to the employers, the unions and industry but seeks to understand firsthand on the ground what is happening and where the weaknesses are in maritime security. I commend his work.

In the case of maritime security, just as one example I refer to the failure of this government to ensure that, as required by law, all ships advise details of their cargo and crew members 48 hours before they reach an Australian port. This issue is in fact picked up in part (1) of the second reading amendment by the opposition, where we draw attention to the fact that there has been a failure by the Howard government to conduct security checks on foreign crews, which goes to the manifest of crew members.

This is an issue that the opposition has been pursuing since the early part of the parliament of 1996, when we started pursuing this issue through questions to the minister for immigration, which then unfortunately led into more serious questions going to the operation of maritime security in Australia. For the government to think about it only 10 years later, when in a second reading amendment we are forced to again raise the question of the failure of the government to actually conduct adequate security checks on foreign crews, raises serious questions in the minds of many in the Australian electorate about the commitment of the government to do something about protecting the Australian community.

I say that because the most recent information given to the Senate tells us that, interestingly, just 67 per cent of ships coming to Australian ports actively comply with the requirement to properly advise of their cargo and crew 48 hours before they reach an Australian port. That is an indictment of the minister and an indictment of the performance of the Howard government on the maritime security issue. It is also interesting to note that a third of ships simply do not comply with the law, and this government is doing nothing about it. Of those ships, half do not inform authorities about their cargo and crew until they are berthed in an Australian port. And we are supposed to be concerned about border protection in Australia in 2006, moving up to yet another anniversary of September 11! I just shake my head.

I tell you what: a lot of Australians are shaking their heads about the lack of commitment by the Howard government to their protection, because they want to sleep in the knowledge that we have a government actually committed to doing something genuine and practical on the ground in the fight against terrorism—and it is an international fight. It is about time Australia pulled its weight. It is no longer just a simple issue of being seen to do the right thing through passing legislation; it is also a more serious question about enforcing existing legislation over and above the amendments that the Labor Party supports in the debate before the House today.

That takes me to another area of grave concern and, in my view, absolute dereliction of duty on the part of this government. This dereliction of duty relates to the failure to carry out a comprehensive security check on foreign crews. I think it is fair to say that the government do not know who is actually coming into Australia as part of a foreign crew from day to day. They do not know and, to be honest, they do not care. This is about detail and hard work, and they have no commitment to actually going into the detail and doing the hard work to protect the Australian community. This is a very important issue raised by Labor members and senators on many occasions, publicly and in this parliament. When it comes to foreign crews, the names on the manifest are checked against existing databases, usually—and you have to be surprised at this—after the ship is berthed. Then they check to see if any of them are persons not wanted in Australia. The fact is that there is no way of knowing whether the people on the ship are who they say they are, and no security checks are done on any of them by the Howard government anyway.

Conversely—and this is what is expected of Australian seafarers beyond Australia—it is an interesting comparison to see what our seafarers have to go through overseas, as against foreign seafarers coming to Australian shores. Australian seafarers are required to undergo the most rigorous and thorough security checks by the Australian Federal Police and by ASIO, and appropriately so. We want to make sure that Australians working in the maritime industry are there for the right reasons: they are merely seeking gainful employment in an industry that they love and care about, and these seafarers also care about the security of Australia. Why aren’t we applying the same standards to foreign crews coming to Australia? Why aren’t we prepared to commit to saying to foreign crews that we expect them to undergo the same security checks by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO as those which we apply to citizens of Australia? There is no good reason why there should be lesser security checks on foreigners coming into Australia than the security checks that we apply to Australian citizens. It is fundamental that we have the same standards of security.

Importantly, our seafarers also have to have a maritime security identification card. There were detailed negotiations with the government leading up to the legislation which provided for this card. The requirements with respect to the maritime security card are similar to those required to get a clearance to actually work in and around our airports and as aviation workers. Aviation security identification cards certify that the holders are people of good character. We have no idea whether or not foreign crews include people of good character and good background—which I think we should know about foreign crews—who are appropriate for employment in a security sensitive area. That is what we are asking for with respect to foreign crews—that you are required to prove that you are of good character and good background and therefore welcome to enter our ports. We are carrying pretty sensitive cargo. I think we have to make sure that we are thorough about ensuring that those who are involved in the carrying of that cargo are of good character and good background. I defy the government to suggest that we should have any other standards. If it is good enough for Australians to meet the required tests by the Australian Federal Police and ASIO of being of good character and good background, then surely we should ask the same of those crews coming to Australia which could cause major terrorism damage to Australia.

It is a fundamental security measure, and the Australian public must be assured that we are in safe hands at our airports and in our ports. The same can be said of the way the government handles our maritime security. As my colleague the member for Brisbane put very well: ‘The Howard government hands out permits for flags of convenience crews like it was a Friday night chook raffle at the local pub.’ I think that is a fair description of the Howard government’s approach to maritime security. None of the checks—the types of checks that would give us confidence in Australia that our seafarers are carrying out their duties in a proper way—are carried out. Flags of convenience crews are, frankly, floating terrorist opportunities to do serious damage to Australia.

The use of ships of convenience was a measure to handle peak periods of demand that was introduced by the Howard government in an extreme campaign against the rights of Australian workers. The government is now using these ships to replace Australian ships and crews on a routine basis, in the process sacrificing the safety of Australia’s sea lanes and ports. The ports of Sydney, Brisbane and Fremantle are major population centres. We need a government that cares about guaranteeing the future, the security and the safety of those local communities.

The government is exposing our maritime ports of entry to the hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods. What types of goods? We should be concerned about this. I am concerned about explosive grade ammonium nitrate, but it would seem that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Truss, is not. I am concerned about the potential for terrorists to smuggle explosives and weapons into this country. I am also concerned about the potential for other criminal activities. It seems the Prime Minister is not concerned about these issues, because foreign crews are not told that they also must be of good character and good background.

As the shadow minister for resources, I have other problems. I am concerned about the lack of commitment by the Howard government to working with the industry and the Maritime Union of Australia to ensure that well-trained, highly skilled Australian seafarers maintain their pre-eminent role in the LNG shipping trade. Think about the current growth in resources. Why aren’t we training Australians to share in the benefits of these exports opportunities?

For over 25 years, the continuity of operations agreement between the North West Shelf venturers and the MUA has ensured the safe, reliable, on-time delivery of LNG cargoes to customers around the world, in particular Japan. The agreement has served the industry and Australia well. Receiving nations can rest easy in the knowledge that LNG tankers will safely operate in their sea lanes and ports under the control of highly skilled, security-cleared seafarers—people of good character and good background. If it is required in Japan, why isn’t it required in Australia? It seems that the Prime Minister is more concerned about the safety of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagoya than he is about the safety of people living in and around the ports of Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Geelong, Portland, Adelaide, Fremantle, Kwinana and Karratha—to name a few of the ports that depend on, or are exposed to, foreign crews.

Japanese, Chinese or Korean LNG receival terminals are entitled to this degree of security but Australian terminals are not. Those countries require a high degree of assurance that their cargo, vessels and onshore terminal facilities will be secure, yet we do not expect the same standards in our own ports. One of the strengths of the Australian LNG industry is its reputation as a reliable, safe supplier in the global marketplace, and one reason Australia has been able to maintain its global position as a reliable shipper of LNG is that the shipping contracts have been written on a delivery ex-ship basis. This means that the seller controls the shipping. I would be concerned if there were any move away from ex-ship contract terms to free-on-board shipping contracts, where the seller generally controls the shipping. This is a very serious policy issue, and I ask the government to start thinking about it. In Labor’s view, a move to free-on-board weakens Australian involvement in the LNG transportation task. It introduces more flags of convenience shipping into the LNG trade. It risks Australia’s reputation as a reliable LNG supplier, and it creates potential new security risks here and in the ports of our customers. If that is the case, we will lose.

A 2004 report produced by Scandia National Laboratories, under contract to the US Department of Energy, titled Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water made mention of the fact that Australia’s LNG risk management strategies are world’s best practice—good enough for overseas but not good enough for Australia in terms of foreign vessels and foreign crews coming to Australia. The same level of risk assessment and commitment to high-quality risk management strategies cannot be guaranteed if ships contracted to carry Australian LNG are drawn from the flags of convenience registries. We are already exposing our maritime points of entry to the hazards of foreign crews handling dangerous goods such as explosive grade ammonium nitrate. They are floating targets, with crews about whom we have no understanding of whether they are of good character or goodwill. I do not want to accept those risks and in doing so expose the LNG trade.

I am asking today for a greater commitment from the Howard government to seriously address the potential for terrorists to smuggle explosives and weapons into the country and the potential for other criminal activity to run riot in Australian ports. That takes me to the issue of security checks on the enormous number of containers that come through our ports every year. Just 10 per cent of them—imagine that!—are X-rayed when they are unloaded. In Hong Kong, one of the busiest ports in the world, 100 per cent of containers in two of their nine terminals are now X-rayed. If it can be done in Hong Kong, it can be done in Sydney, Brisbane, Perth or any other port. Why not in Sydney? Why can we only X-ray one container in 10 in Sydney? The Howard government does not think this is an issue of great concern.

Australia has a coastal border of 37,000 kilometres. Protecting this border and the points of entry to Australia is a priority, but the issues raised by me today are not on the government’s agenda. This government has no plan for maritime security. The bill before the House is a small step forward, but a lot more needs to be done. We as a nation deserve better when it comes to our national security and the protection of our maritime borders and points of entry.

The second reading amendment raises the issue of serious weaknesses in the system. I join with the member for Brisbane in condemning the government for its neglect of its duties on maritime security, for using flags of convenience permits to undermine Australian shipping and jobs and for its failure to guarantee, as any ordinary Australian rightfully expects, that people supplying Australian ports on overseas vessels with foreign crews are of good character and of good background. The Howard government needs to answer that question. (Time expired)

See this speech in context