Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007. The bill creates a new class of temporary visa to be known as a maritime crew visa. The application process for the new visa will enable crew to be appropriately security cleared before they enter Australia.

In 2005, approximately 585,000 maritime crew travelled to Australia. The maritime crew visa will enable crew to be appropriately security cleared before they enter Australia. The new requirement under this bill will become mandatory as of 1 January 2008. Those requirements must include a valid passport, a maritime crew visa and documents establishing the crew member’s employment on the vessel. This measure, which Labor has been demanding for some time, will ensure that this area does have something in place. Our national security is far too important to have a regular point of border entry through which people who have not been subjected to appropriate security checks can enter. Labor welcomes the fact that the maritime crew visa sets in place a reporting regime for foreign maritime workers coming to Australia, but the fact that shipping agents will be able to apply on behalf of members of crew indicates that ASIO and Australian Federal Police assessments that will occur may not be as comprehensive as required.

Currently, foreign non-military maritime crew and their families are not required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia. Special purpose visas are currently granted by operation of law. At present, maritime crew are granted special purpose visas on arrival in Australia, following checks against the Department of Immigration and Citizenship movement alert list. This process does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crew of these ships are allowed to enter Australia—an issue that Labor has been saying for some time now does need to be addressed.

The delay by the government in introducing a security checked visa for maritime crew is hard to understand. It has taken almost 6½ years since 11 September 2001 for this government to act in this regard. The government has only now adopted what has been a longstanding Labor Party policy to vet foreign maritime workers. Labor has consistently raised concerns about foreign vessels whose crews have not been security vetted and which potentially carry—and do carry—thousands of tonnes of explosives around coastal Australia. In 2005, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute published a damning report on the state of Australia’s security arrangements called Future unknown: the terrorist threat to Australian maritime security. That report identified the dangers of foreign flagged vessels carrying dangerous goods around the Australian coastline. This is a warning Labor has repeatedly made to this government. We have specifically warned about the dangers of foreign crewed, foreign flagged vessels, for which there has been no security check, carrying ammonium nitrate around the Australian coastline. We have also pointed out that Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiah have acquired the skills and opportunities to launch a maritime terrorist attack. These groups operate in South-East Asian waters near to our borders—waters in which the incidence of piracy is the highest in the world. On the last available figures, there are two acts of piracy per week in the waters just to our north-north-west, exactly in the area in which those terrorist organisations operate.

Labor’s spokesperson on homeland security has reported that United States intelligence sources observed that the al-Qaeda group is suspected of owning or having a long-term charter fleet of between 15 and 18 bulk general cargo vessels. Whilst it is believed that they are used to generate revenue to support the group or to provide logistics for the terrorist network, it is not far fetched to imagine that one of these vessels could be used as a floating bomb on a suicide mission, making use of explosives like ammonium nitrate.

Against that background, there is the failure of the Howard government to ensure that these dangerous chemicals are handled by crews who have been properly checked and cleared. At the moment, that applies only to Australian crews. It is something that needs to be addressed. It is a disgrace that it has been allowed to go on for so long. We know that al-Qaeda has access to maritime vessels, expertise in maritime terrorism, expertise in explosives and access to those explosives, and yet we find that the Howard government has dragged its feet in upgrading maritime security.

Australian maritime workers, in contrast, must apply for an Australian Federal Police and ASIO background check to acquire their maritime security identification card, commonly known as an MSIC. Under the Howard government, though, foreign maritime workers do not undergo similar checks when they carry thousands of tonnes of explosives into and around Australia. It is dangerous and irresponsible that that has gone on. It has been a disturbing national security failure of the Howard government not to have this concern addressed. While the government has improved security among Australian flagged ships, it is still of great concern that invasive security and criminal background checks are not conducted on foreign crews.

Furthermore, this government has misused the process of giving permits to foreign crewed ships to travel around Australian ports. There has been a system in place for many years to enable foreign crewed ships to operate the Australian coastal route by special permit. While that appears to be nothing short of a sensible process, this government has actually used it as a tool to attack the Australian crewed ships and their economic viability around Australian ports. As the shadow minister for homeland security and territories has repeatedly said, this government has seemingly handed out these permits like confetti. The government has not done the security checks on the foreign crews that are done for Australian crews, and that is, to this point, unacceptable.

While the government needs to provide more support to the Australian shipping industry, this bill at least goes some way in addressing the issue of security checks on foreign maritime crews. While the bill will enable crews to be appropriately security cleared before entering Australia, it also contains some sensible measures to allow the visa to be ceased by declaration where it is considered undesirable for a person or class of persons to travel to, enter or remain in Australia. The bill also includes an express power to revoke such a declaration to allow for situations where additional information may come to light about a person’s suitability to travel to or remain in Australia.

Labor understands that the detail governing the new maritime crew visa will be set out in the migration regulations. We will have a look at those when they become available—the earlier the better. The government, though, has allocated $100 million over five years for the introduction of the visa. In a media release dated 22 December 2005, the government announced the $100 million maritime crew visa system for all international seafarers visiting Australian ports after July 2007. The breakdown of that was announced as:

... $55.3 million for IT systems associated with the new visa and to record sea crew movement records; employ 19 additional Regional Seaports Officers to assist industry with the new visa, conduct vessel boardings and manage compliance and employ additional staff in DIMIA’s Entry Operations Centre to support the shipping industry.

The media release also detailed:

The Australian Customs Service will receive $39.5m for 66 new Customs Officers to enforce the new provisions as part of Customs’ vessel clearance process and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation will receive $5.5m under the package.

The cost of the proposed visa, in particular $30 million for an additional 66 Customs officers, was of course queried by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and it was explained this way by the Australian Customs Service:

[Currently] seventy-five per cent of all first-port arriving vessels will be boarded by Customs on a risk assess basis. That is the minimum. However, there is no time restriction. Under these new arrangements ... there is a requirement to undertake the physical checking within one hour of the vessel actually arriving. In order for us to meet that requirement in some of these ports we need to increase our staffing accordingly. Around Australia we have quite small ports where we need to increase our staffing to achieve that aim.

It is imperative that this money is being spent to improve Australia’s national security at our ports along our coastline. It is overdue and much needed.

Despite the fact that this government regularly claims to be tough on border security, we not only have the long delay that the government has had in introducing this bill; we have a situation where Indonesian fishermen are regularly illegally entering Australian waters. There was a period of increased sightings of illegal fishing operations in the Australian exclusive economic zone by Coastwatch and the Australian Defence Force assets. More recently it has been reported that there has been a fall in the number of sightings, but we will be able to have another look at that at estimates. However, there has been a reported shortfall in aerial surveillance by Coastwatch over our northern waters. This has combined with the unavailability of the Navy’s Armidale class naval vessel patrol boats, which have been struck with problems and are apparently in repair dock.

The Armidale class naval vessel patrol boats are used by the Navy to intercept illegal fishers. They work in conjunction with Customs. In September 2006, problems were detected with the fuel system and the Armidale fleet was sidelined. In February 2007, it was confirmed that the problems were still occurring and were proving difficult to fix. According to the Navy’s website, the Armidale class was supposed to improve Navy’s capability to intercept and apprehend vessels in a greater range of sea conditions, increasing surveillance, which will better protect Australia’s coastline. It is disturbing news to find that the ships are having problems. It represents some five months that we have been relying on stopgap measures. We have had to use the Fremantle class patrol boats to assist in patrolling our northern waters.

It is clear this government is simply not on top of its responsibilities with regard to border security in our northern waters. More needs to be done. After examining the bill, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended that the Senate support the bill. The committee report noted that all submissions to the committee expressed in principle support for strengthening Australia’s border security arrangements. However, concerns were still raised. The Maritime Union of Australia queried the effectiveness of the maritime crew visa in closing a gap in maritime security.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Australian Customs Service advised that the proposed maritime crew visa had a number of features that would improve security over existing arrangements. These features would include: the visa application would require more comprehensive information against which security organisations could make checks; and the applications would be an ongoing source of information on individuals seeking to travel to Australia as crew on non-military ships, thus allowing more cross-checking with other information sources. There would be an ability to infringe the masters, owners, charterers and operators of ships for carrying improperly documented passengers and crew to Australia and there would be an increase in the number of Customs officers assigned to ports to enable all ships to be physically checked within one hour of the vessel arriving.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship responded to some of the concerns of the MUA but also stated that for the first six months following the implementation of the proposed maritime crew visa the department would be encouraging people to use the visa but not penalising those who did not. So it seems that any unexpected problems could be resolved during that time.

Labor has been critical and continues to be critical of the government’s careless and widespread use of single and continuing voyage permits for foreign vessels with foreign crews who do not undergo appropriate security checks. It has also criticised the government for permitting foreign flag of convenience ships to carry dangerous goods on coastal shipping routes and failing to ensure ships provide details of crew and cargo 48 hours before arrival. It is clear that more needs to be done. Despite its delayed introduction, this bill, as I have said, is a welcome measure. It is not the comprehensive solution the government touted that it might be back in 2005 when it was first mooted. However, as I have said, it does go some way to addressing some of the problems.

I take this opportunity to thank the secretariat, the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for the work they have done. Perhaps this is also the first opportunity in the chamber to recognise that the previous chair of the committee has moved to a different committee and we now have a new committee member. I place on record my appreciation of the work of the previous committee chair, Senator Marise Payne, who worked diligently and tirelessly on the committee over many years, representing the coalition’s interests on that committee. She also ensured that the minor parties and opposition received a fair go at the witnesses. I put that on the record for those who might be interested.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by noting the Democrats’ support for the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 and by concurring generally with Senator Ludwig’s remarks about the outgoing Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Senator Payne. I am not sure that all her colleagues would always think she was representing the coalition’s interests collectively in every action she took, but, much more importantly, she was representing the interests of the Senate, and the public more broadly, and she is widely acknowledged as doing so. That committee is a good example, and one I have often pointed to, of a Senate committee that does the wider job of examining legislation on its merits rather than coming to it from a predetermined political position of an individual political party. I am sure the new chair will follow in the same vein.

As I said, the Democrats support this legislation. It is one case where the terminology ‘strengthening the integrity of Australia’s borders’ is being accurately used because it does actually do that. The phrases ‘border protection’ or ‘border security’ are catch-all, feel-good labels that get attached to a lot of things, in many cases in circumstances where they are not appropriate. Border protection and border security are about knowing who comes into the country and what they might bring in with them, whether it is goods, diseases, pathogens, fire ants or all sorts of things. That is what border security is about. The phrase ‘border protection’ is often used in the context of asylum seekers. But, as the now departed Senator Vanstone used to say sometimes when she was using her capacity for straight talking that many people have acknowledged favourably in recent times, asylum seekers want to be found. They arrive here and say: ‘Here we are; come and get us. Please get our details and listen to us.’ This is completely different from people who come into the country unauthorised—trying to get in without other people being aware of it—and about whom we simply do not have details.

That is really what this legislation goes to—actually having the necessary and accurate processes in place to determine the details of people who are coming here. That is what real border protection and integrity are about. As indicated in Senator Ludwig’s contribution, a lot of these measures have been in the pipeline for a while. The issue more broadly has needed to be identified. If we are talking genuinely about the need to step up the security around who enters the country—an issue that people have looked at more closely following September 2001 and the World Trade Centre attacks—then this is the sort of thing we should be looking at. The fact that we have had so many resources, so much political frenzy and so many legislative changes railroaded through here with regard to people who did not present any border security or border integrity issue at all and so little done in this area where there are issues that need addressing shows how much the government’s priorities are driven by purely partisan and often quite nasty politics rather than by genuine concerns about security.

The current arrangements are that the crew of non-military ships are granted special purpose visas by automatic operation of the law. As part of maritime crew, they do not have to make a specific application for a visa to come here. That process did not and, as it currently exists, does not permit security checks to be conducted before the crew of those ships are allowed to enter Australia. I do not wish to create an impression that they will just waltz in once they get here, but if we are looking at security checks and properly determining the details of people we are letting into the country then this area is not operating as well as possible. Again I contrast that with the asylum seeker issue where every single person is assessed in terms of security and, indeed, much more forensically than just about anybody else that enters this country. Not one of them has had a visa rejected in many years. So it is a reminder of both the importance of security checks and their misdirected focus in many cases.

Even at the height of arrivals of asylum seekers in Australia the numbers were much lower than the numbers of people coming here every year without security checks through maritime crew arrangements. Without in any way wishing to cast aspersions on people who are part of maritime crews, there are obvious security issues with what arrives in Australia in ships through our ports. There are obvious issues just in terms of the goods that come through our ports and how well we are able to oversee that movement. If we are genuine in using terms like border security and border protection and the integrity of our borders then resources need to be directed there, because that is where the real risks are. There are not just the security risks with the people coming in as part of maritime crew but the risks with what they may be bringing in either consciously or, in the case of quarantine related matters, unconsciously.

These reforms are welcome. They will add some extra red tape to maritime crew arrangements and it is important that we get the process flowing as smoothly as possible to minimise any extra disruption that occurs from doing that. On balance, I think it is a necessary disruption for the reasons we have all been outlining, and the Democrats are prepared to support it. It raises the importance of being accurate in our language when we are talking about the integrity of our borders and border security and we need to direct resources to these areas. Frankly, we should stop using terms like border protection when it comes to asylum seekers. They are not a threat; they are simply not a border protection issue. They are always identified and always checked out. There is not an issue there in terms of anything unknown entering into the country.

The security of what comes into our country through our ports is important, whether it is crew, as is dealt with by this legislation, or goods or other things. It is a continual balancing act, as it is through our airports. We know that millions of people enter Australia every year on temporary visas, visitor and tourist visas and the like, and the vast majority of them enter through our airports. You cannot run stringent character checks on every single one of those. I suppose in theory we could, but we would soon find that we would not have millions coming in through our airports; we would have significantly reduced numbers because people would not bother coming here if we had stringent character checks for every person wanting to come here as a tourist. So we have to strike a balance between adequate levels of assessment of people coming into the country versus ease of access, whether we are talking about the tourism industry or any other industries involving the movement of people. Many businesses involve a lot more international travel these days. From an economic point of view, it is very important for people to be able to move around the world as freely as they do within our own country. Rather than putting up unnecessary barriers to people going to different places, seeing different places, experiencing different things and engaging in different activities—whether economic, cultural or anything else—I think that, from a philosophical and what I might call a genuinely ‘liberal’ point of view, we should try ensure as much freedom as possible.

But it is always a matter of balancing those things. This is one area, rightly, where putting some extra security checking arrangement in place would enable that to happen before people arrive here, and it is a necessary change and, in some respects, probably an overdue one. Once it is in place and operating smoothly it will allow these sorts of things to be done in advance and any potential problems to be flagged before people arrive. That is obviously far better than having people arrive and then doing spot checks or in-place checks and then finding a problem. That can cause a lot more hassle for the individual concerned and for the shipping line and the crew than would occur if it were done in advance via security checks. I suspect there will be some teething problems along the way, but once it is bedded down and in place it should operate without major extra inconvenience. Indeed, there might even be reduced inconvenience when problems do arise. It is welcome, although it will obviously need continued monitoring as it is put in place and as the regulations are put down. I am sure that monitoring will occur.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I make some brief remarks on the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007 I acknowledge and thank both Senator Ludwig and Senator Bartlett for their generous remarks in relation to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and my previous chairmanship of that. I also indicate to the chamber that Senator Barnett, the new chair of the committee, is unable to be here today due to a commitment in Tasmania. I am pleased to participate in this debate as a member of the committee and as a former chair.

The bill before the chamber today will amend the Migration Act to create a new maritime crew visa. As part of the measures which will improve Australia’s border security, all crew of non-military ships will have to apply for a visa prior to entering Australia to enable security checks to be conducted. This maritime crew visa, or MCV, is to replace access to the special purpose visa, or SPV, regime which now applies to the crew of non-military ships, their spouses and dependent children. This is a visa which will apply from 1 July 2007. The explanatory memorandum says:

Currently foreign crew and their families are not required to make a formal application for a visa before coming to Australia. The grant of a maritime crew visa will require a formal application to be made, which will allow each foreign crew member and the spouses and dependent children of such crew, to be subjected to an appropriate level of security checking before visa grant.

The coalition government has a very strong record—reinforced by last night’s budget—on border security. In fact, to protect our borders and our security, this government has in recent years funded major expansions in new technology used by both Customs and the Australian Federal Police to increase border protection measures, implement more efficient processing of passengers and assist in the detection and prevention of terrorism and serious crime.

We have taken action to protect the people of Australia from what are seen as developing criminal trends, such as identity fraud, the manufacture of synthetic illicit drugs—we saw the recent enhancement of funding for fighting the ice epidemic prevalent in many of our cities at the moment—and money laundering. The government has undertaken significant initiatives in that regard, both in pursuit of the FATF recommendations and independently of that with counterterrorism financing. We have also developed one of the world’s toughest aviation security systems to protect both Australian and overseas travellers. That stands in accord with the remarks made by the Treasurer last night in his budget speech. After making some observations in relation to our obligations in the defence area, he noted that we continue to be absolutely committed to addressing emerging threats to national security. I note for the record that the Treasurer indicated that the budget provides a further $702 million over four years for national security initiatives to further safeguard against terrorism, including high-priority intelligence needs, an integrated e-security national agenda and further strengthening of aviation security. He indicated that this brings to $10.4 billion the additional funding the government have committed to national security over the 10 years to 2010-11. I think the record stands for itself.

Briefly, the main provisions of this bill include the creation of a new class of temporary visas to be called the maritime crew visa; the provision that the new visa will be permission to travel to and enter Australia only by sea unless a health, safety or other prescribed reason make it necessary for the person to enter Australia in another way or unless the entry in another way has received prior authorisation; and the replication of the power of the minister under the special purpose visa regime to make a written declaration that it is undesirable that a person, or any person in a class of persons, travel to and enter Australia by sea to remain in Australia. The exercise of the power would cease the visa in that case. The bill also provides that if such a declaration is revoked, the effect of it is as if it had never been made. It provides protection for the Commonwealth against any claims by persons who may have been detained while the declaration had been in force.

The further provisions of the bill enable the new maritime crew visa to be held with certain other types of substantive visas—for example, a transit visa or an electronic authority to enable a crew member wishing to join a ship in Australia to travel by air; provide that it will be an offence for an airline to carry a passenger whose only visa is a maritime crew visa; and make certain technical amendments so that an appropriate regulatory framework can be created to identify who may be granted a maritime crew visa and then to describe the events that will result in the cessation of a maritime crew visa.

I want to briefly outline the implementation arrangements for the new visa. I think it is also important to note for the record that details of this nature were also canvassed in the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry, chaired by Senator Barnett, which was held into this piece of legislation to make sure that stakeholders who came before the committee and who made submissions to the committee were aware of and comfortable with the implementation arrangements.

The amendments in the bill provide a basic framework for the existence of maritime crew visas which, for crew on non-military ships, replace the SPV arrangements currently in place. The maritime crew visa arrangements are designed to cause the shipping industry as little disruption as possible. Consultations with industry indicate that they are indeed comfortable with the proposals. The major change for industry will be the requirement for foreign members of crew, including supernumerary crew and the spouses and dependent children of such crew, to make an application for a visa outside Australia to travel to and enter Australia. Currently, under the SPV arrangements, foreign crew and their spouses and dependent children are granted an SPV by operation of law when they enter Australia. The special purpose visas cease when those people depart Australia with their ships or in certain other situations to be set out in the regulations—for example, where a member of a crew works in Australia outside the scope of the duties they would usually perform on their vessels or when a ship leaves Australia without a crew member; obviously where the person is absent without leave or has deserted. Under the proposed regulatory framework, maritime crew visas will similarly cease in certain situations, as I have indicated in the above examples—for example, failing to sign on to a ship within five days of arriving in Australia by air or failing to depart Australia after signing off a ship.

I think it is also important to record in this debate the areas in which the proposed new visa arrangements for foreign seafarers will assist with Australia’s overall border integrity. Some of those areas were set out in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship’s submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry, which noted:

• the ability to security check applicants because crew will be required, through a formal application process, to provide relevant personal biographical data and other information including character information and employer details;
• the inclusion of information, in DIAC’s visa database, about seafarers seeking to travel Australia can be cross-checked against crew information provided to Customs at the time of their impending arrival in Australia with their ships;
• increased funding for relevant staff to be involved in the various checks to be carried out at the time of visa application and at the time of crew arrival in Australia;
• an MCV holder would only be able to travel to Australia by air if they obtain an additional visa suitable for travel by air;
• the ability to check the bona fides of sea crew arrivals when their ships arrive in Australia with the added ability to check crew of concern on non-military ships before they enter Australia’s migration zone;
• the ability to infringe the masters, owners, charters and operators of ships for carrying improperly documented passengers and crew to Australia; and—

importantly—

• the ability to more closely monitor, analyse, and respond to breaches of immigration compliance by foreign sea crew.

As the department’s submission to the inquiry observed, when you put all of those features together, we end up with a much more comprehensive process for deterring those who could be described as non-genuine crew from seeking to enter Australia for purposes which are not connected with the maritime industry and, hopefully, to generally address the future risk involved in dealing with foreign seafarers as a cohort of temporary visitors to Australia.

I also want to refer to the observation in chapter 3 of the committee’s report in relation to the consultation on this bill undertaken by the department with the various stakeholders. The committee has pursued the issue of consultation with agencies over the course of many years—not just with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship but with all that have come before the committee—and that continued during this inquiry. The representative of the department who was present at the hearing on the occasion of discussing this bill indicated in relation to consultation that the department had established an industry working group with Shipping Australia Ltd in early 2006 and that that industry working group had met on four occasions in that year to discuss the proposed arrangements for the maritime crew visa. It was also indicated that there was a meeting held in Canberra with representatives of the Maritime Union of Australia and the Australian Shipowners Association to broadly discuss the proposed arrangements. The departmental representative said that those meetings indicated to the department that the approach to this new visa was largely meeting the requirements of industry. The department also indicated that they undertook industry consultations which started in late November 2006. There were 11 industry seminars in capital cities and at major ports around Australia. The committee’s report noted in paragraph 3.4:

Shipping Australia Limited noted in its submission that it had been working with DIAC for some time to ensure that the Maritime Crew Visa (MCV) would result in minimal impost and cost to the shipping industry.

The consultation process is a very important matter for the committee, and it is good to be able to report that consultation has occurred and that there is general satisfaction with the approach being taken by government in that regard. The bill proposes important initiatives to enhance Australia’s border security. They are important initiatives for the Senate to consider today.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions in this debate on the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007, and I thank the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitution Affairs, which looked into this bill and, as usual, did a very good job. I think that would have been one of the last references that Senator Payne would have presided over as chair.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payne interjecting—

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand there might be one or two others. I want to acknowledge the great job that Senator Payne has done as Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. A heavy workload has been an attribute of that committee over a long period of time. I also thank the members of that committee. In my former role as Minister for Justice and Customs, I had a lot to do with that committee.

The bill before us, the Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007, though a small bill, is an important bill. Under current arrangements, foreign crew are granted special purpose visas by operation of law. Prior to a ship’s arrival in Australia, ship operators are required to report all crew to the Australian Customs Service. Those crew names are checked against Australia’s movement alert list, which includes persons listed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. While these arrangements have been working effectively for many years, the government believes that the measures contained in this bill are needed to further strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders.

The bill will create a new temporary visa, to be known as the maritime crew visa. It will provide the crew of non-military ships with the legal authority to travel to Australia by sea and remain in Australia in connection with the work on their ships. Significantly, the application process for the new visa will enable crew members to be subjected to more rigorous security checking before a visa is granted. For example, the application process will collect considerably more data on foreign crew than is currently available through pre-arrival crew lists and will also provide additional time for further security checks to be undertaken in the event that there is a match against Australia’s movement alert list.

As with most other visas, the detail governing the new maritime crew visa will be set out in the migration regulations. While there will be a small compliance cost associated with the introduction of the new visa, care is being taken to ensure that the regulatory framework accommodates the needs of industry. It is anticipated, for example, that the new visa will be able to be applied for online, and there will be no charge for the visa. Shipping agents will also be able to apply for the visa on behalf of crew members.

A number of points were raised during the debate and I think it is fair to say that speakers on this bill are all supportive of its intentions and what it does; however, there was a suggestion that the government has been slow to introduce these measures and that this has put Australia at risk of a terrorist attack. The first point that should be noted is that there are already security checking measures in place in connection with the existing special purpose visa and that these arrangements have been working effectively, without incident, for many years. Notwithstanding, the government continually reviews its security arrangements and has decided that the system would benefit from the introduction of the new visa. As I have said publicly and in this place many times, security is a work in progress and we are continually reviewing ways that we can improve the system to improve security for Australia. Therefore, the suggestion that there is a gaping hole in Australia’s maritime security is simply not correct.

The second point to note is that it is entirely appropriate for there to be a consultation process before any significant changes are made, even though meaningful consultation clearly takes some time. If that were not pursued, the opposition would be the first to attack the government and others for not doing so. The benefits of conducting such consultation are recognised in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which concludes:

… the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between the need to strengthen security at ports whilst allowing for ease of use by industry and maritime crew.

In summary, the measures in this bill will help to strengthen the integrity of Australia’s borders while being responsive to the needs of maritime crew and the shipping industry as a whole. As such, it is a thoroughly worthwhile bill and I commend it to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.