Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That noteworthy presentation by the member for Chifley is a very hard one to follow. As you walk out of the chamber, Member for Chifley, take a bow. I am pleased to rise tonight to support the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Amendment (Security Plans and Other Measures) Bill 2006, but obviously I support the opposition amendment, which, whilst not declining to support the bill, urges the government to do a lot more about what we perceive to be, and I think rightly so, threats to our national security. I will detail the amendment:

(1)

the Howard Government’s failure to conduct security checks on foreign crews;

(2)

the Government’s continued failure to ensure foreign ships provide manifestos of crew and cargo before arriving at an Australian port;

(3)

the ready availability of single and multiple voyage permits for foreign flag of convenience ships including the ready availability of permits for foreign flag of convenience ships carrying dangerous materials in Australian waters and ports;

(4)

the failure of the Howard Government to examine or x-ray 90% of shipping containers;

(5)

the Government’s failure to create a Department of Homeland Security—

as there is in the United States of America—

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”.

Some on the other side may well be saying that the reason why Labor are moving this amendment is to make a political point, but from where I sit as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security I can certainly say that we cannot be doing enough to protect the security of our ports and our borders. In looking at this legislation and supporting the provisions of this legislation, from my perspective the legislation clearly does not go far enough. As we have heard from some other contributors, even the legislation that has been implemented has not been appropriately applied. Given what I perceive to be this nation’s risk—and I will come back to that particular point in a moment—I believe that the government must do more to ensure the national security of Australian citizens.

I mentioned before the current threat environment. Today, in my capacity as deputy chair of the joint intelligence committee, I received a briefing from a gentleman called Robert Pape, who has written a book called Dying to Win, which is a very thorough analysis of the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. That book talks about the reasons why suicide terrorism is being used by organisations like al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiah, the Tamil Tigers and a range of other organisations. Through a thorough analysis of suicide terror bombings, we can see that it is not just linked to the Islamic population. There are other examples, and I have just cited some of them. It is a tool used by an organisation to make a point to a country, to weaken a country’s resolve and to strike at the psyche of a particular community. When you look at the history and conduct a thorough analysis of the attacks that have been conducted, it is not a tool that is only applied by organisations that cover themselves with the Islamic umbrella. But, having said that, we should be very mindful of this point made by the very thorough and incisive analysis conducted by Associate Professor Robert Pape: those nations that participate in occupying forces in foreign countries are invariably at a much higher risk of retaliatory attack by organisations like al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah. There is a very well documented and researched book which establishes that fact.

Australia has a force in Iraq and, when one looks at some of the analysis that was conducted into the reasons behind the Madrid bombings, the bombings in London and the attempted bombings in London, quite clearly organisations like al-Qaeda are targeting allies of America as a consequence of their involvement particularly in Iraq—because that is the focus of al-Qaeda’s recruitment campaign at the present time—rather than just attacking American interests and America. Australia is an ally of America that has a force in Iraq and, as a consequence of this involvement, according to this very well researched document, we are at a high risk of terror attack.

Whilst we are debating this amendment and this particular bill, which has welcome measures to improve transportation security, we must not forget the threat that we face. We must also remember that we must do much more in light of that increased threat to improve Australian transportation and maritime security. In the past I reflected on the speech made by the shadow minister for homeland security, Arch Bevis, when we were talking about legislation that we had supported with respect to ships having to give 48 hours notice before being permitted to dock in Australian ports. What we found, due to a Senate committee report, is that up to 15 per cent of ships had actually berthed in Australia without notifying Australian authorities about the contents of their cargo and about their crew.

That is completely unacceptable because one of those ships could be carrying a very large amount of ammonium nitrate. Colleagues prior to my presentation tonight have spoken about one particular incident in 1947. A government document about the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations spoke about the devastating effects, in the government’s own words, of the use of ammonium nitrate. It states:

The best known example of terrorist use of ammonium nitrate was the bombing of the Alfred P Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995, destroying the nine storey office block, killing 168 people and injuring over 500 more. Approximately two tonnes of ammonium nitrate was used in that bomb.

Ammonium nitrate was also used in the IRA’s 1996 bombing of London’s Canary Wharf. Total damage was estimated at £85m and several buildings had to be demolished. Two people were killed and 100 injured, the low casualty count due to a series of IRA coded warnings which gave police an hour to evacuate the area.

Clearly, that is not being done with regard to terror atrocities committed by Jemaah Islamiah and al-Qaeda. It continues:

Ammonium nitrate was also used in the 1998 Omagh bombing which killed 29 and injured 330 people.

On 30 March 2004, UK police announced the arrest of eight individuals on terrorism charges. The eight were British citizens, possibly of Pakistani descent, and a related search of a ‘lock-up’ found half a tonne of ammonium nitrate fertilizer. The men were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

The problem is that in Australia something like 95 per cent of ammonium nitrate is used as an explosive, particularly in the mining industry, which is an industry that is powering the Australian economy at the present period of time. It continues:

There is no regulation of its sale as either a fertilizer or an explosive ingredient in Australia, and very little regulation governing its security ...

It is also used in the agricultural sector. Consequently, we have the potential, even in our own country, for enormous damage to be caused by hundreds of thousands of tonnes of ammonium nitrate sloshing around the country, basically unregulated and basically unsupervised. In terms of the threat level to this country, that is completely unacceptable.

It is believed that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have somewhere in the order of 11 and 15 ships being used or under their control that can be used. One would think that in this set of circumstances, given the level of threat that I have described, we would be doing everything in our power to ensure that no Australian ship that entered a port was crewed by foreign crews or, if they were, that they would be thoroughly and securely vetted before they got into this country or that their ships would be interdicted, like they are in the United States, if they do not actually report their contents and crew within 48 hours of arriving at that particular port. The fact that that is not being done in this country absolutely stuns me. We are a seafaring country. The other thing is that we export a large amount of LNG, and one of the potential targets by ships carrying ammonium nitrate are sea lane targets. Whilst this legislation, as I have said before, is welcome, it does not go far enough. It should be oversighted by a department of homeland security.

See this speech in context