Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party supports a safe and secure transport sector in our nation. It needs to be managed by the right legislation and regulation to stay one step ahead of criminals and terrorists. We of course know the threats facing our transport sector are constantly evolving. It's critical that we revise and refine our laws to keep Australia's transport sector one of the safest in the world. The safety and security of all Australians is paramount. We in the Labor Party will always take the advice of our national security agencies. Labor has a consistent track record of working cooperatively and in a bipartisan manner on all matters of national security. Of course the bill before the chamber today—the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019—is no exception.

The bill today amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the aviation act, and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, the maritime act, to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports. The bill before us aims to improve transport security in two important ways.

Firstly, the bill before us clarifies the ability of aviation security inspectors to test aviation industry participants' security systems, including by specifically allowing inspectors to conduct system tests with the test pieces at locations beyond screening points in an airport terminal. They will be able to do this without the risk of committing an offence under other laws. For example, following the passage of the bill, aviation security inspectors will be able to expand their testing regimes to include air cargo examination and, importantly, catering facilities.

The bill before us also establishes the framework needed to introduce a national standard of competency for aviation and maritime screening personnel. The thousands of security screeners who work hard at our airports and seaports perform a vital role. I personally am grateful—as, I'm sure, all senators and staff in this place are personally grateful—for the work they do to keep us safe in our skies. These people, our security screeners, prevent weapons, firearms and explosives from making it onto aircraft and cruise ships, ensuring we can all travel safely and securely. To me it's notable that, because they're there to make sure people aren't carrying such items, they do this largely without discovering them. It highlights the significance and importance of the screening role they play, which means that in large part people don't even attempt to get such items on board. Indeed, we're all happy to comply and participate in such screening.

The legislation ensures that the education, training and testing requirements for screeners will remain flexible, effective and relevant in an increasingly complex security environment. It gives us the framework necessary so that screeners are well-equipped to respond to threats both now and into the future. The bill introduces measures allowing the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to prescribe the requirements associated with screeners' training, qualification and accreditation. This is with the aim of enabling screener requirements to be adapted efficiently and in response to rapid changes in the security environment, meaning that we will have a workforce that is more flexible and agile in responding to these issues.

I'd like to draw particular attention to the important work of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to this legislation. The original bill had a number of gaping holes which were identified by the committee. I'm sad to say that they do speak to the lack of due diligence that has become commonplace under this Liberal-National government. It is particularly alarming to see these issues arise within a security context. Firstly, the unamended legislation would have permitted an aviation security inspector to test an aviation industry participant's security system 'including by using an item, weapon or vehicle'. Of course, this means real weapons and, therefore, real explosives in testing the detection of such items. While the legislation notes that tests must be done in accordance with any requirements prescribed in regulations, we don't believe that delegated legislation should be used unless a sound justification is provided. As no such justification has been provided, despite the scrutiny of bills committee calling on the government to explain this lack of clarity in December, Labor will therefore move an amendment that seeks to prevent this legislation coming into force until the testing requirements are prescribed via regulation.

Secondly, the explanatory memorandum clearly states that any test pieces, such as 'imitation firearms and simulated improvised explosive devices', are designed to be inert and not to cause harm. However, as the scrutiny of bills committee noted again, this requirement does not exist on the face of the primary legislation, and Labor believes that this must be fixed. What kind of government, I ask the chamber—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—omits a requirement like this from the legislation? This is about keeping people safe in their workplaces and safe in our skies, plain and simple. In what context should people who are testing the robustness of screening be asked to use live firearms or, for example, real explosives?

We appreciate that the government has heard Labor members' urgent calls for the legislation to be amended and for an assurance that live firearms and improvised explosive devices won't be used. We are pleased to say we will, of course, support this amendment to correct this glaring oversight.

Lastly, the legislation allows the secretary to determine training and qualification requirements for screening officers by legislative instrument. However, the secretary is also empowered to exempt the class of screening officers from one or more of the requirements if exceptional circumstances exist. We acknowledge that there might be valid situations where exemptions might need to be applied. Labor believes that the application of these exemptions must be reported transparently. We thank the government in advance for their commitment to accurately and transparently answering questions in relation to these exemptions during Senate estimates. And I'd like to draw Senator Cash's attention to these remarks, which were to say to the government: we have very forthrightly argued that, for any exemptions to the training qualification requirements for screening officers—anyone who is exempted—the government should report those transparently. We're looking to the government to provide that information during Senate estimates in relation to the use of any such exemptions.

The Australian people put great trust in the parliament to ensure that we enact the right legislation to protect Australia's national security. We do this while also balancing any new laws with openness and transparency. So it is in a spirit of continuing to build trust with the Australian people that Labor will move these amendments. We welcome the amendments that the government will move today. We will support the amendments, as they go some way towards fixing problems with the bill. In addition, we look to moving our own amendments to fully capture the recommendations of the scrutiny of bills committee and to solve these issues in this very important bill. I have to say, a lack of due diligence and accountability has been the calling card of the Morrison government. I commend the scrutiny of bills committee for their work on this important piece of legislation.

We used to be able to trust the Morrison government with our borders. But, sadly, that does not appear to be the case anymore. In March this year, with the arrival of the Ruby Princess, Prime Minister Morrison said: 'The Australian government has also banned cruise ships from foreign ports … from arriving at Australian ports.' The Prime Minister said on that same day that there 'will be some bespoke arrangements that we put in place directly under the command of the Australian Border Force to ensure that the relevant protections are put in place'. Four days later, after the Prime Minister's remarks, on 19 March the Ruby Princess was allowed to disembark its 2,700 passengers in Sydney. As we know, they included sick passengers who were allowed to spread across Australia and the globe.

So, despite banning cruise ships and putting Border Force in direct command with bespoke arrangements, our Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, did not stop the one boat that mattered—the boat that he promised to stop. And Australians have lived with those consequences. The Prime Minister has made light of this by pointing to the fact that the Commonwealth didn't have ultimate responsibility for these issues, and so he let himself off the hook. What does not let him off the hook is the fact that he made these very public undertakings to the Australian people. In the context of this debate about safety and screening at our borders, I call on the Prime Minister to put this debate in the context of COVID-19, and I call on the Prime Minister to apologise to the hundreds of Australians who've contracted COVID-19 because of the Ruby Princess, as well as to the family members of Australians who've lost their lives. The Ruby Princess is a disaster which has spread COVID-19 across Australia and the globe. It's responsible for over 1,000 cases of COVID-19; 30 tragic deaths; the north-west Tasmanian outbreak, which included 11 deaths; and 127 of the cases that I spoke about before. We cannot forget that allowing the Ruby Princess to dock in Sydney, despite the Prime Minister's undertakings that he would manage the situation, has been a big human tragedy. Over 30 Australians have lost their lives as a result of it.

In the short time that's available, I want to draw attention to issues around the Commonwealth and the ABF. When it comes to our borders, the buck should and does stop with the Commonwealth. No amount of buck-passing by the Prime Minister or his ministers absolves them of this responsibility, a responsibility which is outlined within the Constitution. We've also seen the disaster of the number of aeroplane arrivals claiming asylum, with an absolute explosion of over 100,000 aeroplane arrivals in Australia claiming asylum. We've seen Peter Dutton's half-a-billion-dollar Paladin blunder and we've also seen a litany of other Home Affairs failures. In concluding this debate today, I want to reflect that, when we're looking at standards of security at our borders and a robust system of training and testing, it's right that we have a government that pays attention to the issues in the legislation that's before us today. But we can see in that legislation significant holes that need to be fixed by amendment today, and we have seen a litany of other Home Affairs failures at Australia's borders.