Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Maritime Powers Bill 2012 and the Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 seek to establish a framework for the exercise of the Commonwealth's maritime enforcement powers. The principal bill establishes a system of authorisations under which a maritime officer may exercise enforcement powers in relation to vessels, installations, aircraft, protected land areas and isolated persons on certain grounds. It also provides for the enforcement powers available to maritime officers, including boarding, obtaining information, searching, detaining, seizing and retaining things and moving and detaining persons, and creates offences for failure to comply.

The principal bill proposes to consolidate the powers and functions that currently exist in existing law, chiefly under the Customs Act 1901, the Migration Act 1958, the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984.

The unique aspects of the maritime environment merit a tailored approach to maritime powers, helping to ensure flexibility in their exercise and to assist maritime officers to deal with quickly changing circumstances and difficult and dangerous situations. The powers contained in the bill are primarily based on powers currently available to operational agencies.

The bills were referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported on 12 September 2012. Coalition senators, in a dissenting report recommended that the bills not be supported.

Coalition senators believe this legislation may represent a surreptitious attempt to remove the Commonwealth's power to turn back unauthorised boats as part of an effective national border control policy.

The term 'surreptitious' was used because agency witnesses before the committee were unable to state whether this power is preserved in the bill. Agency witnesses suggested that clause 5 of the bill purports to preserve the Commonwealth's prerogative powers, which would include the power to repel unauthorised vessels.

However, given that the principal bill clearly seeks to codify Commonwealth maritime powers, it seems clear that any prerogative powers must be read down. For example, clauses 31 and 32 seek to provide in a comprehensive way for acts that may be performed and for what purposes they may be performed by an authorised officer, which do not include turning vessels back. Similarly, the powers of stopping, manoeuvring and chasing in clause 54, and those of detaining vessels in clause 69, are also silent on turning vessels back.

The coalition will be moving amendments to ensure that this legislation is not read down in a way that brings into question the undoubted power of the Commonwealth to refuse entry into Australian waters or, if necessary, to tow back unauthorised maritime arrivals. This is a matter upon which the coalition expects bipartisan support. After all, on the eve of the 2007 election Mr Rudd told the Australian newspaper:

… Labor would take asylum-seekers who had been rescued from leaky boats to Christmas Island, would turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas …

"You'd turn them back," he said of boats approaching Australia, emphasising that Labor believed in an "orderly immigration system" enforced by deterrence.

"You cannot have anything that is orderly if you allow people who do not have a lawful visa in this country to roam free," he said. "That's why you need a detention system. I know that's politically contentious, but one follows from the other.

"Deterrence is effective through the detention system but also your preparedness to take appropriate action as the vessels approach Australian waters on the high seas."

Mr Rudd's Labor government was elected on a policy that included the interdiction and repulsion of illegal entry vessels. The coalition has always maintained that turning boats around where it is safe to do so is an important part of the suite of measures necessary for the effective management of Australia's borders, and in this we apparently had the agreement of the Labor Party—at least up until the 2007 election. Of course, we now know that the subsequent Labor governments have made a complete hash of the protection of our borders and the maintenance of an orderly immigration program. In fact, since that 2007 election, 570 boats carrying 33,495 people have arrived.

This is almost 20,000 more people, and more than double the number of boats that arrived during the entire 11½ years of the Howard government. More than a thousand people have drowned. We hear of asylum seekers on bridging visas released from detention centres being lodged in university halls of residence, abandoned houses and office buildings. This is at a cost of billions of dollars, while those accepted under our humanitarian resettlement programs are made to wait; and now the government demonises skilled migrants—the backbone and success story of our immigration program. Yet here we are debating a bill on the powers of our maritime officers to deal with unlawful incursions—whether of people, contraband or disease—into Australian territorial waters, and its drafters cannot definitively tell us whether those powers include the power to turn the boats around. That is why the coalition will move the amendments that have been circulated in the chamber. It is not our expectation that those powers will be exercised routinely; however, situations will arise where it is safe and proper to do so. In those cases, the necessary orders will issue and those responsible for issuing the orders will find that under the legislation.

As I have said, this should not be a controversial proposition. It was explicitly discussed in the Houston report. The Houston report found that turning boats back 'can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive'. At page 126, the report states:

The following principles for implementing turnbacks are based on international and domestic legal considerations, as well as diplomatic and operational considerations:

(1) The State to which the vessel is to be returned would need to consent to such a return.

I pause here to say that the government and the Greens have failed to acknowledge that, as the report confirms, this consent may be provided by acquiescence. 'Acquiesce' is a very specific term, as the drafters of the Houston report were well aware. This is precisely what was invoked when the policy of turning back boats was last implemented under the Howard government. The second principle was:

Turning around a vessel outside Australia's territorial sea or contiguous zone…or 'steaming' a vessel intercepted and turned around in Australia's territorial sea or contiguous zone back through international waters could only be done under international law with the approval of the State in which the vessel is registered (the 'flag State').

These provisions, I note, are set out in article 8, paragraph 2 of the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air. This does not, however, address the situation of a flagless vessel, which is how the majority of cases first present at sea, and provide a legal basis for interception.

Paragraph 7 of that same protocol states:

A State Party that has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel is engaged in the smuggling of migrants by sea and is without nationality or may be assimilated to a vessel without nationality may board and search the vessel. If evidence confirming the suspicion is found, that State Party shall take appropriate measures in accordance with relevant domestic and international law.

The third principle cited by the Houston report states:

A decision to turn around a vessel would need to be made in accordance with Australian domestic law and international law, including non-refoulement obligations, and consider any legal responsibility Australia or operational personnel would have for the consequences to the individuals on board any vessel that was to be turned around.

There is certainly no clear legal obligation arising under article 33 of the refugee convention to prevent Australia doing this in extraterritorial waters. The US Supreme Court held in Sale v Haitian Centres Council that the US Coast Guard's high seas interception and return of Haitian asylum seekers did not contravene article 33. This argument is strengthened by the position that non-refoulement has increasingly become an established principle of customary international law. In addition, Indonesia is a signatory to numerous other conventions that also deal with non-refoulement, including the convention against torture. It is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Houston report's fourth principle is:

Turning around a vessel would need to be conducted consistently with Australia's obligations under the SOLAS Convention, particularly in relation to those on board the vessel, mindful also of the safety of those Australian officials or Defence Force personnel involved in any such operation.

The Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea 2004 state that the government responsible for the search-and-rescue region in which survivors are recovered is responsible for providing a place of safety or ensuring that such a place of safety is provided. The safety of Defence Force personnel is managed by the chain of command, which has always been the coalition's policy. Sadly, we are now seeing vessels in distress are being rescued by our border protection agencies, which have every legal right to return people to the closest place of practicable safety but are not doing so. Instead, they are being treated as a water taxi service to facilitate asylum claims on the Australian people. Some such claims are made by intimidation through threats to their own safety and potentially, later, to the crew themselves to force the hand of these vessels.

We have a clear difference in attitude here between the government and the coalition. The government has been dragged kicking and screaming to deal with these issues of enforcing our sovereignty at sea on our borders. The coalition has always believed in it. We believe we need strong laws and we also believe we need a government that is prepared to use those strong laws and use every option available to it to protect our borders. This government does not have that track record and it does not have the trust of the Australian people.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Maritime Powers Bill 2012 and the Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 seek to create a single enforcement area in Australia's maritime zones and, in some instances, on the high seas or in the territorial waters of a foreign state. The main bill will repeal duplicate enforcement provisions with other Australian legislation. The Maritime Powers Bill will establish an enforcement and authorisation system for maritime officers to operate under. With regard to instances of seizures and detention, the bill provides processes for dealing with items seized and people detained. The bill creates an offence regime for failure to comply with its provisions.

The Greens still have significant concerns about the breadth and content of the bill. Clause 14 of the bill has the potential to expand the reach of Australian domestic law in a way that is not mandated by international law—specifically, the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, commonly known as UNCLOS. Clause 14 allows Australia to apply Australian law extraterritorially in the presence of an agreement between itself and another nation. Yet, no mention is made of UNCLOS nor the importance of any such agreement adhering to the text of the convention for the agreement to be valid. This should be deeply concerning for a nation that seeks to be a lawful international citizen. Clause 14 clearly manifests in an expansion of Australia's imprisonment of fisherfolk on the PNG border much in the same fashion as current operations on the Indonesian border.

A submission from the Australian Lawyers Alliance outlines the impact of this aggressive expansion of maritime powers along the Indonesian border. They set out how the expansion of powers will contribute to the desperation of communities in Indonesia to seek an income for their families and to the liability of the Commonwealth to pay compensation. There is also at least one instance, chronicled by the ABC in 2011, of an Indonesian fisher who was charged with unlawful fishing outside an Australian zone. He was later acquitted, returned to Indonesian and then began people smuggling, having lost his ability to fish.

By continuing practices like this Australia is helping to create a class of disenfranchised Indonesian sea captains who are available to the highest bidder. Invariably, many will end up as victims of predatory people-smuggling syndicates, captaining boats that are smuggling people to Australian waters. Eventually they are caught by Australian officers and subject to the mandatory sentencing that accompanies a people-smuggling conviction. In instances where disenfranchised fishers are turning to people smuggling, they are returning to their communities to suffer the social dislocation and isolation that comes with losing a primary means of subsistence.

By extending the aggressive enforcement measures to PNG, there is a real fear that we condemn these traditional fishers to a similar fate. Of equally grave concern is that these fishers who are detained under this regime often have absolutely no knowledge of the distinction between Australian enforcement zones and their coastlines, let alone that they are breaching any laws. More needs to be done to ensure that the fishing communities who are likely to be affected by this legislation when it is passed are educated about the change in circumstances. It is not appropriate to merely focus on enforcement when similar issues can be pre-emptively addressed through an effective education campaign, certainly at a much lower cost to the fishing communities concerned, and arguably the Australian public as well.

This expansion also seems to undermine the provisions of the Torres Strait Treaty, which affords protection to traditional fishing. The regional processing act may potentially allow for the detaining of Papua New Guinean citizens engaging in traditional fishing. I do welcome the provision of clause 95 for the treatment of persons under this act, namely that they be treated with humanity and with respect for their human dignity and are not subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, I do contend that, for clause 95 to be more than mere platitude, it needs to provide a closer examination of the measures the persons who come under this bill will be subject to. For instance, clause 75 states that restraint is not arrest, which seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to block claims of unlawful detention. To uphold a sense of human dignity like that referenced in clause 95, there needs to be greater accountability in instances where someone's personal autonomy is compromised under this bill. It needs to be made clearer under what circumstances 'restraint' becomes 'detention' and what remedy there is available for someone who questions the nature of his or her restraint under this bill.

Clause 9 contains a concerning reference to 'intention to contravene a law', but there does not seem to be an appropriate test for proving intention. Once someone is adjudged to 'intend to contravene the law', a maritime officer may then authorise the exercise of maritime power. Considering the authoritarian nature of maritime power, I argue that there needs to be a more stringent test for intention; otherwise, we cannot be sure we are not subjecting people to arbitrary arrest.

The implications in this legislation are actually huge. There seems to be a contradiction between the spirit of clause 95 and the operation of clause 100 and clause 101. Clause 100C provides that an officer does not need to inform the person of the offence for which they are arrested if the officer, and I quote, 'believes on reasonable grounds that the person does not speak English'. Clause 101 provides that the officer must take the person before a magistrate as soon as practicable. There is a distinct possibility that the operation of clause 100 in conjunction with clause 101 will see people charged before they understand what they are charged for. There need to be provisions to ensure that those detained by the Commonwealth have access to the same legal rights any Australian citizen would expect.

While we are discussing legal options for those detained, there is also concern around the remedies provided for people whose vessels have been confiscated by the Commonwealth. Clause 81 states that an application for things to be returned must be made within 30 days from the notice of Commonwealth ownership. I am concerned that this is not enough time considering the impoverished situation of those who are most likely to come under this bill. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that, within 30 days of seizure, these fishers will return to their homes, access a translator, obtain legal representation and then mount a legal challenge to the Commonwealth's possession of their property. They are also expected to undertake such a challenge at their own cost during a period when they have been deprived of their livelihood.

For all intents and purposes, this clause, alongside clause 91, which provides for the destruction of seized vessels, will serve to deprive people of the tools that sustain their livelihoods, further contributing to the cycle of poverty that they have been trying to get out of for themselves and their families. We are particularly concerned about any provisions that allow for the destruction of vessels, given that heavy-handed approach of Australian authorities in the past. There have been instances, much to our shame, where Australian authorities have destroyed up to 30 per cent of a community's fishing fleet. For many people who lose their livelihood in this way such a loss has huge implications and can result in considerable ongoing hardship. We should take great care before including similar provisions in this bill.

Failure to have a sustainable approach to the treatment of fishing boats means that the Commonwealth government is not utilising its expenditure effectively. The process of finding and destroying boats, imprisoning individuals, paying compensation to families, paying legal fees in such claims and then supporting the now disenfranchised communities through AusAID is a cyclical pattern that must be broken. This cycle is not only costing the livelihoods of regional fishing communities; it is also costing the Australian public. Such inconsistencies do need to be rectified and alternative policy solutions sought. With this legislation there is clearly a number of problems that need to be fixed up. Thank you.

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Maritime Powers Bill 2012 and the Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012. As Australia is an island continent and has sovereign rights over a vast area of ocean, the harmonisation of several bills in the maritime powers area is a very important reform.

Australia has 60,000 kilometres of coastline. It is the third-largest exclusive economic zone in the world, after the United States and France. Our maritime search and rescue region covers one-tenth of the Earth's surface. We have the world's third-largest fishing zone, extending up to 200 nautical miles out to sea, and our commercial fishing and aquaculture industry is worth over $2 billion to our economy annually and employs 16,000 Australians.

Australia faces a litany of maritime threats which require constant vigilance from dedicated officers working under difficult conditions across a range of portfolios. These committed professionals do a very important job on behalf of the Australian people, and they deserve our thanks and our support. Often the important work of our border protection agencies goes unrecognised and unnoticed. For instance, recently three Indonesian fishermen were convicted for illegal fishing. The men, who were operating in two boats, were blast fishing with explosives inside Australian waters in early October of last year. Both vessels were initially sighted by surveillance aircraft from the Australian Border Protection Command and were apprehended by patrol boats from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The first boat was apprehended on 1 October at Scott Reef, about 250 nautical miles north of Broome, and the second boat was apprehended on 2 October at Evans Shoal, about 100 nautical miles north-west of Darwin and 18 nautical miles inside Australian waters. Both vessels had chemicals on board, including TNT and detonators, to make small bombs for the purpose of fishing. Both masters admitted to using the equipment to undertake blast fishing in Australian waters. Following investigations by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the three men were charged by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and all pleaded guilty in the Darwin courts. They were fined a total of $43,000. Both boats were confiscated by AFMA and were destroyed.

The Maritime Powers Bill will ensure that AFMA and our border protection agencies have the tools they need to continue their difficult tasks into the future. In 2008, the Prime Minister commissioned the former Secretary of the Department of Defence and Ambassador to China and Indonesia, Mr Ric Smith, to report on the best and most efficient way to coordinate Australia's national security arrangements in the maritime area. The review recognised that many threats are cross-jurisdictional and transnational in nature. The review recommended an additional focus on threats and hazards other than terrorism, including emergency management, serious and organised crime and electronic attack. The review identified, amongst other things, that there was scope to streamline the legal framework for maritime enforcement activity.

Commonwealth agencies are responsible for the enforcement of a broad range of laws in the maritime domain, including illegal fishing, customs, migration, quarantine, environmental protection and trafficking of illicit substances. However, despite similarities in the powers required, legislation governing enforcement has been largely agency or issue-specific. When then Attorney-General Robert McClelland announced the development of this bill back in 2009, he highlighted the fact that Australia's maritime agencies were operating under at least 35 separate Commonwealth acts. He also stated that the differences in the powers of each act and the associated procedures had the potential to create operational problems, legal uncertainty and policy difficulties in making sure that enforcement remains up to date and consistent.

This bill responds to those concerns and creates a more streamlined, more harmonised approach through a single maritime enforcement law. Operational agencies will not lose any powers that they currently have available to them. Significantly, the bill will provide a mechanism to implement and enforce international agreements that have a maritime enforcement aspect. For example, the bill will provide a comprehensive regime for Australia to implement its high-seas boarding and inspection rights and obligations under regional fisheries agreements. The bill will also provide for the implementation and enforcement of decisions of international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council.

The bill establishes a range of appropriate safeguards in relation to the exercise of maritime powers, including instituting a system of authorisations for enforcement actions on specific grounds by senior maritime officers. The bill also elucidates the chain of command at sea to allow maritime officers to exercise powers in relation to vessels, installations, aircraft, protected land areas and isolated persons, including where they are reasonably suspected of contravening Australian law, to administer or ensure compliance with Australian law, or where an international agreement or decision applies.

The bill provides a simpler, more cohesive set of guidelines surrounding maritime enforcement powers and the purposes for which maritime officers may exercise those powers. The bill does impose geographical limitations on the exercise of maritime powers. It establishes processes for dealing with things that are seized, retained or detained, and for persons held as a result of the exercise of maritime powers. The powers are largely based on those that currently operate in existing legislation and are necessary and appropriate to enforce laws in Australia's maritime area.

According to the Customs and Border Protection Acting Chief Executive Officer, Michael Pezzullo, intelligence shared across borders and organisations makes all the difference. In 2012, Customs and Border Protection officers made over 6,600 detections to stop more than three tonnes of illicit drugs and precursor substances from hitting Australia's streets. This is more than double the number of detections in 2011. In 2012, Customs and Border Protection also detained over 1,100 firearms and firearm parts, accessories and magazines and approximately 247,000 other weapons. This is indicative of the battles that our border protection authorities fight every day, for which they need our full support and, importantly, laws that allow them to carry out the dangerous work that they do in the most effective and safest way possible. This bill will go a long way toward achieving that goal.

The bill provides a smarter and simpler approach to maritime enforcement through streamlining the framework for use by our on-water enforcement agencies. Where existing maritime enforcement powers overlap with powers in the Maritime Powers Bill, the Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 will reduce that duplication. The bill has been subject to extensive consultation processes with agencies and relevant stakeholders to ensure that the consolidation exercise maintains current operational power for agencies. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Any amendment to legislation that assists our border control agencies and our Defence Force in dealing with the protection and security of our borders should be supported. This bill, the Maritime Powers Bill 2012, would be supported without qualification if it made clear that the amendments would in fact ensure that Australian officials had all of the right powers to do it. As I understand the bill, though, and as I understand the report of the Senate committee looking into the bill, there is some uncertainty on whether the provisions of this bill will actually take away from Australian enforcement agencies some of the rights which they currently enjoy. To that end, as Senator Payne has said in leading the debate, the coalition will be moving some amendments to make absolutely certain to clarify the fact that, should it be necessary, Australian officers, officials and agencies will be able to turn around boats.

You do not need a Western Australian state election to highlight the fact that most Australians are appalled at the current government's complete inability and, it seems, disinterest in stopping illegal arrivals to our country. There are good reasons why Australia should have an ordered immigration program and an ordered refugee program. I say particularly to the Greens political party when this issue is raised: what do you say to the tens of millions of UNHCR-determined refugees living in squalid detention camps and refugee camps right around the world who are patiently waiting for their turn to come into Australia in accordance with United Nations and Australian rules? Every one of those who come to Australia illegally means that those who are waiting in the queue in these squalid detention camps and refugee camps around the world are put back another year because of people coming here illegally. I say to the Greens political party: when all of you rail about that, get on TV and shed the crocodile tears, what do you say to those people waiting their turn in the refugee camps around the world? These are people who have been determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be genuine refugees. They are people who, when spaces become available in Australia, Canada, the United States, Europe or New Zealand, take their turn. But, with people arriving here illegally, those people are put back. Never once have I heard the Greens—or the Labor Party, for that matter—address that position. That is why it is essential that we in fact have laws that enable Australian agencies to deter those who would enter our country illegally.

I want to refer to just a couple of quotations that should indicate the depth of support for effective means of deterring illegal entrants to our country. I quote a former Labor leader who I expect might be the next Labor leader. I do not know what happened this morning in caucus. Have we had a change of leadership yet, or is that for next Tuesday? Anyhow, Mr Rudd said before the 2007 election:

… Labor would take asylum-seekers who had been rescued from leaky boats to Christmas Island, would turn back seaworthy vessels containing such people on the high seas … "You'd turn them back," he said of boats approaching Australia, emphasising that Labor believed in an "orderly immigration system" enforced by deterrence.

Who could disagree with that? In fact, Mr Rudd was enumerating the Howard government's position. Mr Rudd was saying what I think—and the people of Western Australia clearly demonstrated this on the weekend—most Australians would expect.

But what has happened under the Gillard government and indeed the Rudd government? Talk is always pretty cheap for the Labor Party, but have a look at what its actions are. Since Labor has been in power, there has been an enormous increase. Some 33,495 people have arrived under Labor's watch, and they have arrived by entering Australia in a way that is not authorised by law. There have been 570 boats since Labor came to power. In this year alone we have already had 1,500 arrivals. In 2012, 25,000 people entered Australia in this fashion, contrary to the law.

I want to make it clear that the coalition are not against immigration, and we are certainly not against refugee intake. In fact, we, along with all political parties in Australia, welcome immigration and, importantly, we do our share in taking into our country genuine refugees who have been determined as such by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees—and so we should. I think all Australians appreciate that. In fact, on a per capita basis, Australia is one of the most generous countries in bringing in genuine refugees. But that is why we do need a proper deterrent. I make no determination, but there are certainly suggestions that a lot of people coming in are not refugees, are not in fear of their lives or their liberties, but are looking for a better life. I do not blame them for looking for a better life, but we do have rules and regulations and we have a very genuine and generous refugee program that should be enforced. We now have the situation where the current government have completely lost control of the borders.

There is sometimes some debate on whether you can turn boats around safely. I refer senators to the evidence given by the distinguished seaman who is now Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral Griggs. During a Senate estimates committee, I think it was in the budget estimates last year, he explained how, as a mere patrol boat captain—that is how he referred to himself at the time—he did turn boats around. That was in the Howard years. He also explained, I might say in fairness, that in some instances that was not possible, but he did say, and it is on the record, that you can turn boats around. That is what happened in the Howard years. Do you know the impact that had? Those who would spend $10,000, or $15,000 or $20,000—I do not know what the going rate is, but a lot of money—to pay criminals, people smugglers, to come into the country, would not spend up to $100,000 for their family to come to Australia by these illegal means if they knew that the government was serious about enforcing the protection of our borders; if they knew they were just going to be put straight onto a plane and sent back, or if they knew that the boat they were on was going to be turned around, then they would not come. That would have a couple of results. It would mean that 1,000 people who lost their lives trying to come to Australia on leaky boats that should not have been put out to sea—boats that are run by criminals, who are, ipso facto, supported by the Labor Party's inability to control our borders—might still be alive today. They might still be alive today if there had been a deterrent which said to those people: 'If you want to come to Australia, do it in the right way. Make the application like other people do, or if you're a genuine refugee, abide by the rules of the UNHCR and Australia for bringing in those people'.

If this bill did what the minister indicated that it would do in his second reading speech, then it would be a bill which the coalition would unequivocally support. There is, however, this thought that it may be that the consolidation of various rules actually takes away some of the ability of our enforcement agencies to properly protect our border. I note that there was a dissenting report in the Senate inquiry into this piece of legislation. Coalition senators reported:

… this legislation may represent a surreptitious attempt to remove the Commonwealth's power to turn back unauthorised boats as part of an effective national border control policy.

I think that the minority report indicated that the term 'surreptitious' was used because agency witnesses before the committee were unable to state whether this power was preserved in the bill. That is a bit of a worry and that is why the coalition will be moving amendments to make sure that the powers are there to allow authorised officers to turn boats back where it is safe to do so. Similarly, I understand that the committee ascertained that the powers of stopping, manoeuvring, chasing and detaining vessels in clauses 54 and 69 are silent on the question of turning back those vessels. I hope that those amendments, when they are moved, will receive the support of the Labor Party at least.

I also refer senators from the Labor Party to the principles enunciated by Mr Rudd when he was their leader about the powers that were needed. I also refer senators to some parts of the Houston report, which looked into this issue some months ago. Senators might recall that the Houston report's fourth principle is:

Turning around a vessel would need to be conducted consistently with Australia's obligations under the SOLAS Convention, particularly in relation to those on board the vessel, mindful also of the safety of those Australian officials or Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel involved in any such operation.

So again recognising that there are times when vessels can be turned around. There are examples of it—it happened during the Howard years. And what happened during the Howard years? The flow of illegal arrivals to Australia stopped, because people realised that if they are paying out $50,000 to $100,000 to get here it might all be in vain if they were dealt with in the way that the Australian officials had powers to do.

We are a generous country when it comes to entering Australia as a refugee. There are so many people who have been determined to be refugees waiting in squalid refugee camps around the world who, every time an illegal arrival comes, get put back by yet another year. That is something we have to address.

I urge senators in this chamber to make it quite clear that this bill does enhance powers, not detract from them. As I said at the beginning, you do not need a Western Australian election to tell you that people around Australia are concerned about the porous nature of our borders. If Ms Gillard spoke to any genuine people in Western Sydney last week, they would have told her that they, like every other Australian, believe that our borders should be secure. We should have a regular immigration system and a refugee system that works, is ordered and well-determined. So I urge senators, when the time comes, to support the coalition's amendments to make sure that our officials have the maximum powers to properly enforce our laws.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Maritime Powers (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012. I understand this will provide a single standard framework for authorising and exercising maritime enforcement powers and repeal those powers in a number of other acts, including the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. Amongst other things, this may streamline the pursuit of foreign fishing vessels suspected of operating illegally in the Australian Fishing Zone, AFZ.

I welcome legislation to make Australian powers to police the AFZ against illegal foreign fishing vessels more effective. What I question is the Labor government's willingness to enforce this legislation. I have seen precious little evidence of this government taking any action to enhance the Australian fishing industry—in fact, just the opposite. The Labor government has taken numerous actions during its term in office that can only damage the Australian fishing industry. Policing—or, rather, non-policing—our Australian Fishing Zone is just one example. Rear Admiral David Johnston, Commander of the Border Protection Command, admitted to a Senate estimates committee hearing on 12 February 2013 that no Australian vessel had conducted a patrol in the Southern Ocean for a year, and is not likely to do so any time soon. This is the first time in a decade Australia has not had a presence in the Southern Ocean. Between two and five patrols were conducted each and every year for the previous nine years. The admiral did say that French vessels patrol the region, and one or two Australian officers sometimes hitch a lift with them. Should we be relying on the charity of the French navy to guard Australian fisheries? Of course not. This demonstrates the complete disinterest of the Labor government in protecting our fishing and seafood industries.

I would criticise the Labor government policy for recreational and commercial fishing, but the fact is the Labor government does not have a fishing policy. What it does have is a policy to maintain the support of their effective coalition partners in government, the Greens—a policy that has been scripted by international environmental lobbyists. This involves locking out fishermen, both commercial and recreational, from vast areas of Australian waters containing stocks of fish that all the science says are being caught sustainably. Fisheries science says they can be caught, common sense says they should be caught, but, of course, the international environmental lobbyists have ordained they will not be caught. Those are the people this government listens to.

Under its same non-policy the government has allowed the reputation of Australian fisheries science and fisheries managers to be trashed without speaking a word in their defence. Worse still, the government itself has actively promoted the notion that Australia's fisheries science and fisheries management are inadequate and incompetent. The government has overridden sensible recommendations made on the basis of rational fisheries management and instead implemented short-term policy fixes. It has created doubt and uncertainty where none need have existed. The situation has been summed up by Dr Robert Kearney, who has been involved with Australian fisheries research and management for over 40 years. Dr Kearney is an emeritus professor of fisheries at the University of Canberra. He made a submission last year to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry. Dr Kearney told it like this:

The effectiveness of Australian science and analytical capacity to sustainably manage the Australian fisheries and aquaculture is constrained not by the lack of science or capacity, but by the lack of strategic assessment and government policies for the future security of Australia's seafood supply.

He said it was 'shameful'—and shameful it is indeed. Let us step back and look at the bigger picture. Labor has not created a fishing industry policy, but in its dealings with the seafood industry it has created a perfect template for how to destroy a primary industry. Let me tell you how this Labor government is destroying the fishing industry. First, work in a policy vacuum, then let a department, wholly and utterly unsympathetic to the industry—

Debate interrupted.