Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the generosity of Senator Sterle in allowing me to answer on behalf of the government. I know he would love to be on this side seizing the opportunity himself. The government will not be supporting the amendment to the bill on sheet 1117, because that would make the commencement of the bill, as Senator Keneally has outlined, contingent on the passage of Senator Keneally's private member's bill, which seeks to link aspects of the MSIC background check process with maritime crew visas, particularly as they apply to foreign flagged vessels. That would have the consequence of those people being unable to get visas unless they underwent a similar process. The opposition's bill replicates what is already in place under the maritime crew visa requirements that exist in current migration legislation. For a person to be granted a maritime crew visa—and this is important for those opposite who have kicked and screamed and fought this all the way—their criminal history and their national security risk are considered by the Department of Home Affairs before the visa is issued. Requiring that this also be assessed under the MSIC scheme is an unnecessary duplication of those requirements. The government doesn't support Senator Keneally's bill, so an amendment to make the commencement of this bill contingent on the passage of a bill that the government doesn't support would mean it's very likely that the important measures in this bill would never commence.

An argument has been made by those opposite that there is an injustice in using, for instance, detailed criminal history checks, or criminal intelligence reports, to assess the suitability of an Australian working on our wharves for an MSIC. The injustice that they say exists as a consequence is that people coming into Australia on foreign flagged vessels do not face the same background checks, the same level of scrutiny.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

That's the argument you've made. I understand what you're saying. I'm showing you, Senator Sterle and Senator Keneally, that I've listened and I've understood what you said. Now, if you'd let me address the floor on that, that would be nice. The difficulty with that—and it's important that those listening at home are able to follow this information—is that the vast majority of people who hold maritime crew visas do not require unescorted access to maritime security zones in the way that a person who has an MSIC receives. Visa holders are not given the free rein on our wharves that a person with an MSIC has.

It's been said by those opposite that anyone who has worked on an Australian wharf knows that people with a maritime crew visa are not subject to those restrictions in practical terms. Not only does that sit very uncomfortably with the clear evidence that was given by the department at the hearing but it also is reliant upon the evidence of those people who most have a vested interest in ensuring that they don't face the scrutiny of a rigorous MSIC scheme, and those are the unions that have fought so hard against this scheme. I would suggest that the reason for the government's opposition to this amendment is, put simply, the fact that it is simply not necessary in circumstances where criminal histories are checked and national security risks are checked for maritime crew visas and, furthermore, those people who receive such a visa do not require, should not be receiving and do not in practice receive unescorted access to zones that a person with an MSIC does have access to.