Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate the member for Melbourne Ports on his excellent contribution to the debate. He highlighted most of the issues and more than the issues that are of great importance in this area. The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006 amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The bill simplifies the procedures for making changes to maritime shipping and offshore facilities security plans, clarifies measures relating to the plan’s approval process and makes a number of technical amendments to clarify the act.

I find it really quite disturbing—and I have said this on numerous occasions—that we constantly have to come into this place to clean up and amend bills that were rushed through with indecent haste. It is very important for the government to make sure that all bills are drafted properly and that the consequences of the legislation are looked at fully. We should not have to return to this House to introduce additional legislation to clarify legislation we have already debated. It was quite obvious when this legislation was first introduced that there would be problems.

One of the main purposes of this bill is to require various ships, ports, offshore facilities and other places to have security plans in place to minimise the danger to them from terrorism or acts of violence. The plans must be approved by the Secretary to the Department of Transport and Regional Services. In this legislation, there is a change to the process of approval of security plans in schedule 1—that is, that the secretary will have only 60 days in which to approve a security plan instead of the current 90 days. As well as that 60 days, 45 additional days can be given if more information is required in order to make the decision on a security plan. Invariably, I think we will find that there will be additional information required. It concerns me that those plans must be put in place in a timely manner. When you need an extension of 45 days for that additional information to be put in place, then you have a problem.

This legislation will tighten up the previous bill and, as such, it should be supported. I do not think there will be any members of this parliament who would not feel inclined to do so. More to the point, I think we need to support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. This really highlights the failure of the Howard government in the area of maritime security. I would have to say that much of this government’s legislation relating to maritime matters has always been driven by its ideological hatred of the Maritime Union of Australia. I find it totally unacceptable that legislation that is put in place for one purpose could be distorted, not by what is in Australia’s best interests but rather by the government’s ideology.

The Labor amendments address the Howard government’s failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews and its continued failure to ensure that foreign ships provide manifests of crew and cargo before they arrive in Australian ports, which is essential if we are to ensure that our ports and coastline are secure. They address the ready availability of permits for single voyages—I am also very concerned about continuing voyage permits—and the ready availability of permits for foreign flag ships, including the foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials such as ammonium nitrate into Australian waters and ports. Finally, they address the failure of the Howard government to examine or X-ray 90 per cent of shipping containers.

At a time when security is such a major issue, at a time when Australian seafarers and maritime workers are required to obtain maritime safety identification cards, it would appear rather strange and incongruous that foreign seafarers are not subject to the same type of security—at least at the same level. The requirement of 48 hours notice for crews and cargoes is only adhered to in 67 per cent of cases. That means that 33 per cent of ships entering Australia do not adhere to that rule. Fifteen per cent do not advise about crew or cargo until they have berthed. From my perspective, that is a major security issue. There are no effective security checks of foreign crews.

When we are talking about foreign crews, it is important to examine who these foreign crews comprise. My predecessor in this House, Peter Morris, was chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure.

See this speech in context