Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the very thoughtful contribution of the honourable member for Throsby on this matter. In particular, I wanted to draw to the attention of the House items (5) and (6) of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for homeland security—namely:

(5)

the Government’s failure to create a Department of Homeland Security to remove dangerous gaps and to better coordinate security in Australia; and

(6)

the Howard Government’s failure to establish an Australian Coastguard to patrol our coastline.

The honourable member for Throsby in her contribution alluded to the porous borders that we have to our north. I could not but agree with her. It is a well-known fact. The honourable member for Throsby pointed out that there were more than 13,000 sightings of illegal fishing boats in our northern waters. These fishing boats do three things: obviously, they fish for fish; they fish for shark; and, in respect of some of the reefs, they destroy reefs in their quest for trochus shells. Particularly, they do not limit the taking of the shells to trochus shells—sized or undersized—but they remove all shells from the reef.

When the honourable member for Throsby said that there were more than 13,000 sightings of illegal vessels, she was right. We only intercepted 200. Notwithstanding the extra $300 million, we are going to reduce the number of illegal fishermen from our shores from 96,000 illegal fishermen per year to the much more comfortable figure of 72,000 illegal fishermen, who will enter our borders, rape and pillage our waters and destroy the livelihood and the environment of hardworking fishermen and our Indigenous community—and, while they will not go undetected, they will not be interdicted or interrupted. It is an utter disgrace. For a government that prides itself on issues of national security and what it is doing to bolster national security, to have this happen in our northern waters is a disgrace. It is not good enough.

I will tell you why it is not good enough. The government will not set up a department of homeland security. The United States may have done it in response to what has happened there—and I remind everyone that the September 11 anniversary is not far away. They experienced those attacks and they set up a department of homeland security. The one reason why this government will not set up a department of homeland security is that the Labor Party has been advocating it. We have been pointing out the need for better coordination and a more focused fight in the war on terrorism.

There have been a number of announcements by the government to try and improve coordination. They have embedded a new unit in Defence; they have got Customs officers and Defence officials working there, and I think that is a good thing. But, lest you feel too warm a flush about the success of the government’s moves, not one additional officer or official from the Department of Defence or from Customs has been added as extra. But we would want to do far more. We want to set up a fair dinkum unit of homeland security and we want to stop the illegal fishing.

In a very frank moment in response to a question on notice, a government minister has admitted on the Hansard record that Australia stands at risk of getting avian flu from these illegal fishermen landing on our coastline on our northern waters. Can you imagine what that would do to devastate Australia? In the same response it was happily and freely acknowledged by the government minister that we stand at risk of having rabies enter this country through the activities of these illegal fishermen landing on our coastline. Is there no wonder that there is not one National Party member coming into this chamber and contributing to the debate? Can you imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick—and I know of your great interest in farming communities—how our farming communities, not only in our north, because it would not stay just in our north, but right across Australia, would be devastated by the impact of rabies entering the dingo population and eventually migrating south? There is avian flu, rabies and possibly even anthrax.

So I find it absolutely and utterly amazing that in a national security debate on this legislation, where admittedly the opposition, as it has traditionally done, is supporting the government to get the legislation through but wanting to have practical plans implemented—and hence the amendments—we get only one coalition speaker and a total absence of the National Party. They do not care about our northern waters, they do not care about the fishermen operating in our northern waters and they do not care about the Indigenous community. In this place in this debate they are mute, and I think they are deaf as well. For the life of me I do not understand it.

In her contribution the honourable member for Throsby pointed out what was happening with foreign flagged ships. Firstly, there is a great danger, which the opposition has pointed out, about ammonium nitrate—fertiliser. Fertilisers are used by our farmers and are a necessary ingredient for successful agriculture that comes to this country. Ammonium nitrate is also used, quite properly, by the mining community in the making of explosives. So that I am not accused of gilding the lily, I just want to read from the explanatory statement of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2), SLI No. 163 OF 2005, under the heading ‘Terrorism concern’:

Of particular interest to Australia is that Jemaah Islamiyah ... had planned to use ammonium nitrate to bomb US and other western targets in Singapore, including the Australian High Commission.  The Prime Minister of Singapore, announcing the arrest of 13 JI members on 19 February 2002, said JI planned up to seven simultaneous attacks using ammonium nitrate truck bombs. The group had already stockpiled 3.9 tonnes of ammonium nitrate and planned to acquire another 16.7 tonnes.

So when Labor members of the opposition legitimately get up in this place and express concern about how ammonium nitrate can be used by terrorists in Australia, this one paragraph in the government’s own explanatory memorandum highlights the fact that we are vulnerable and at risk.

In terms of the domestic trade, one of the proud boasts of the coalition government was to get rid of Australian flagged vessels operating on our coastline. It is called cabotage; it is a fancy word, but it meant that you had to have Australian vessels, Australian flags and Australian crew carrying this cargo. Their very proud boast was that they got rid of it. They have opened it up to foreign vessels, all in the interest of economic rationalism. One of the real sadnesses of Australia—the largest island continent in the world—is that traditionally so few of our ships have been crewed by Australians and owned by Australian companies.

If you do have an Australian flagged vessel with an Australian crew you have the most rigorous of checks, and I do not object to that. I think that is a good thing. You are checked by the police and you are checked by ASIO to be able to work as a crew member. It is very thorough. Flippantly, the Deputy Leader of the National Party in this place said, ‘All this security stuff like the airport security cards and’—I presume—‘the maritime security cards that are checked by ASIO and the police are a bit like parliamentary passes.’ Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have to tell you or other honourable members in this place that neither we nor our staff are checked by ASIO or by the police when we are issued a parliamentary pass in this place. There is a world of difference.

It is a good thing that that happens for Australian crews, but it does not happen for overseas crews. In fact, the only requirement Australia places on foreign ships coming to Australia is that they tell us what cargo they have and details of their crew. That is all they have to do. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, do you think they are doing that? Do you think they are complying with this requirement? They are not complying with the requirement. It seems to be an optional thing. Ships are coming to this country without giving that information.

In the United States of America there is exactly the same requirement. If a ship does not provide that information 48 hours before it berths, it does not berth. In Australia they are required to give information in the same time line, but we say, ‘We don’t know who you are, we don’t know what you’ve got, but come on in.’ This is what we consider to be an appropriate way to deal with a terrorist threat. It is an absolute disgrace.

I would make this observation: I suspect there is a greater likelihood of a foreign crewed vessel being an instrument of a terrorist threat than an Australian one. So wouldn’t you think we would be more rigorous as a country on foreigners than we are on our own? It is exactly the reverse.

This government prides itself on its national security credentials. The Labor Party is saying it is not taking practical measures. A practical measure would be not only requiring foreign vessels to provide this information about crew and cargo 48 hours before they dock but insisting that they do it. This is a very simple measure. You would think it would be like a hot knife cutting through butter. It is pretty simple to understand. It is not too complex. We would have a 100 per cent compliance rate—not 99, 98 or 95 per cent but 100 per cent.

That is what they have in America. But of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you and I know, we do not have a coastguard in this country. In America they have a coastguard and in America in the very same situation that ship would be required to stand off away from their ports. It would not be allowed to be a danger to their ports and citizens and it would be inspected by the coastguard.

This government just cannot do it because again, as much as we advocate practical measures like establishing a coastguard and dealing with these issues, the government says, ‘No, we’re not going to have a coastguard’—not because it is not a good idea but because the Labor Party has been seen to advocate it. In national security measures we should set partisan politics aside. We should not be worried about whether the government or the opposition gets an advantage. We should do things that are in the best interests of our nation.

In this particular matter we are merely pleading with the government not to bring a new law down or extend an existing law but to take the practical step of ensuring that this is implemented, that it is actioned and that we get results. The government’s failure to take a practical step to implement it is putting this country at risk. We are a prime target, whether we like it or not and regardless of whether we would wish it otherwise. I am certainly in that latter category. We have to understand that some of the decisions that we have taken as a nation, whether unanimously or otherwise, have made us a prime target for the terrorists. We have to take the interests of the Australian people seriously and to heart. We cannot ignore this. We cannot accept that we are a target but be lax in taking effective measures.

Another area of concern is the containers coming into Australia. Customs reassure people by saying, ‘We physically examine all those high-risk containers.’ That sounds most reassuring. But what are the results? They actually physically examine 1.8 per cent of the containers coming into this country. To put it around the other way—and I hope my maths is right; I know you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would pick me up and give me a private talking to if it was not—that means that 98.2 per cent of all containers are not physically examined. They are not even screened. They are not even X-rayed.

See this speech in context