Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:01): I present the sixth report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament together with 37 petitions and 21 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. The terms of the petitions and the ministerial responses will be printed in Hansard.

Mr WILKIE (Denison) (10:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

There has obviously been a considerable amount of controversy over the last few months over what is being widely described as the Centrelink debt recovery debacle or fiasco. There should have been much controversy over this because we have known for a long time now that Centrelink is sending out in the order of 20,000 debt notices each and every week and something like 4,000 of those, about 20 per cent or about one in five, are wrong. We know they are wrong, the government knows they are wrong and the department knows they are wrong but they are still being sent out.

We also know that this is not a problem that has virtually run its course and will go away, and the government will be grateful for that. In fact, the fiasco is set to get a whole lot worse because this year the data matching to achieve debt recovery will be expanded to include recipients of the age pension and the disability support pension. So this fiasco, which is already of great significance and causing great hurt, is about to become a whole lot more significant and cause a whole lot more hurt in the community.

In this place about a week ago when I spoke about these matters the minister assured the community that all is well, that these are simply 'please explain' letters and that all that is needed is for the recipients of these letters to get in touch with Centrelink—easily done—and explain what the problem is and there will be no further action taken against those members of the community. But the fact is that what the government has had to say about these matters so far has been plain wrong and sometimes misleading. The fact is that a great many people are struggling mightily to even get in touch with Centrelink. They are waiting for an hour or two hours. It is simply not the case that you get on that 1800 number and someone will pick up the phone straight away. We are still hearing stories about people who are waiting an hour and giving up with exasperation. Those trying to deal with this through the online portal are finding it just does not work and does not allow them to communicate with Centrelink.

We know for a fact that a great many people are simply unable to find the historic paperwork that is often required to clear up the matter. When I spoke last week and gave the example of a woman who had had five jobs over the last seven years it was dismissed by the minister, I regret to say. One of those employers is not even in business any more. She has no hope of finding the paperwork back seven years. Heavens, the ATO expects you to keep the paperwork for only five years.

We know many people are scared when they get these letters. It is a scary thing to get an official looking letter from the government. No wonder some people are scared deeply and are just paying the bill. They assume that the government knows better, they assume that the government is right or they just do not assume anything but are so scared they pay it. Perhaps they pay the money that is in the debt letter because they are scared about putting at risk any future payments from Centrelink.

When other crossbenchers and members of the Labor Party have raised examples in the parliament or have raised them publicly at press conferences we have seen the awful practice of the government demonising the people we are talking about. They are very quick to say that those people are wrong so we are wrong and the government is right.

This is a terrible, terrible episode. No wonder the Commonwealth Ombudsman is investigating; no wonder the Senate has decided to set up an inquiry into these matters. I just hope that the Ombudsman and the Senate inquiry make good and speedy progress so that more and more of a light can be shone on this debacle and more and more pressure can be put on the government to axe the system and to put in place a timely, an accurate and a fair debt recovery system. No-one is disputing the fact that any genuine overpayments should be paid back. But let's do it in a timely manner, an accurate manner and a fair manner. This current, clunky system that has been put in place is not timely, is not accurate and is not fair.

The major parties wonder why members of the community—why voters—are shifting their support to minor parties, microparties and independents. Mr Speaker, I will tell you why some people are shifting their support from the government right now: when it comes to the Centrelink fiasco, the government is looking incompetent, cruel, uncaring and unresponsive. This is not the job of the opposition; it should not be up to the Labor opposition or to the crossbench, week after week, to have to come in here and make the case, and keep making the case. It is the job of a competent and caring government, a government with integrity, to see there is a problem, to admit there is a problem and to fix it. That is how you improve your poll numbers, I say to the members of the government.

On a positive note—there is one little positive note here. I was pleased to see, a few weeks ago now, that the minister did acknowledge that it would be helpful if in future no debt recovery action would proceed while people were having their alleged debts examined and any concerns examined and reviewed. That is a good thing. And that brings me to the substantive matter here, and that is the private member's bill which I now have before the parliament, which in essence seeks to formalise and legislate that commitment from the government—to formalise and to legislate that from now on if anyone is disputing an alleged debt then, in law, no debt recovery action will proceed while that review is occurring. I think that is an entirely reasonable thing, and it is entirely consistent with what the minister said only a few weeks ago.

Now, I am disappointed that the minister is not in the chamber for this important bill. He, or at least his staff, would know that I am in here trying to progress this matter. If he is fair dinkum about that commitment he made, that people would be left alone while their matters are being reviewed, I think he would be in here. Hopefully, he is at least watching my little 10 minutes of talking on his television or, hopefully, one of his senior staff is doing that, because I can see absolutely no reason—no reason whatsoever—why the government would not support this bill. If the government does not arrange for this bill to progress to a full debate and to a vote, and if the government does not support this bill then, frankly, it will mean that everything the minister said a few weeks ago was hollow or false. The fact is that a few weeks ago he did say that from now on all debt recovery action against a member of the community would be put on hold while their matters were being reviewed, and that is all this bill seeks to do.

So I am actually quite hopeful that the government will see fit to support this bill. I suspect the opposition and the crossbench will support this bill. I do not mind if it is amended; I do not mind if it is improved. I do not mind if the government actually grabs it and puts its name on it and progress it as its own bill. All I want is the outcome. The public interest would be best served by the outcome. So I say to the minister: get behind this bill, or at least progress your own bill in its likeness.

And let's not forget why we are doing this. Let's not forget why so many of us are trying to keep the pressure up on the government to axe the debt recovery program and to put in place a timely, an accurate and a fair replacement system. It is because this is not about statistics—it is not about just big numbers: 20,000 letters, 4,000 letters—this is about real people. This is about people who we walk past in the street; this is about our mums and our dads and our brothers and our sisters, or our sons and our daughters or our friends—or the people we are supposed to be serving. None of them deserve to be treated like this.

Remember that the most important role of government is to look after the most disadvantaged members of the community. This is an example of bad public policy that is targeting the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of the community. I call again on the government to support this bill. I am hopeful that the opposition and crossbench will support this bill to at least formalise and enshrine in law the commitment that the minister gave only a few weeks ago. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Ms McGowan: Yes, I am happy to second this motion and support all the comments of my colleague on the crossbench.

The SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (10:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Australians are telling us that our political system, the quality of our democracy and all of us here need to lift our game. What turns Australians off politics is the consistent bickering and meaningless daily squabbles. What turns Australians off politics is the perception that politicians are purely in it for themselves and their own interests. These are the reasons that too many Australians feel that our system is broken, that what happens here is cut off from their lives and, to quote Katharine Murphy from The Guardian, that politics has become 'little more than a series of arbitrations with cashed-up rent seekers'. As long as this perception holds we will continue to see the rise of fringe movements and false prophets who convert their anti-Canberra, antipolitics message into seats in the parliament for them.

This is a challenge for all of us who have come to this place to speak up for our communities and to deliver for Australians who call this their home a better standard of living. We all have a responsibility for restoring trust and confidence in our system. What the people of Australia want is leaders and leadership; when leaders say what they will do they mean it and they just get on and do it. This is why Labor is just getting on and doing it. This year we have outlined a three-point plan to restore confidence in the political process—not because we think that that in and of itself will change the daily lives of Australians but because it is the green fee for credibility, for Australians to say, 'Hey, this mob are taking us seriously and our concerns seriously.'

Our three-point plan includes: one, last week in the Senate introducing an inquiry into the merits of a national integrity commission; two, tomorrow voting for long overdue reform of the expenses system; and, three, today presenting to the House our plan for stricter donation rules, stronger transparency and accountability, because secrecy and reform cannot coexist. Secrecy and reform do not go together. The Australian people have a right to know. The health of our elections, our democracy and people's faith in our political process depend upon setting and meeting the highest standards. This is why this legislation is so important.

This legislation is about that great old-fashioned concept that Australians have a right to know, about making sure that voters, shareholders and consumers are aware of who donates to which party and how much they give. This legislation will also include loopholes that vested interests currently use to hide their donations and conceal their influence. This begins with a long overdue reduction of the disclosure threshold from $13,200 to $1,000.

I am very proud of Labor's record on this question. I genuinely believe we make a very strong case. In 2006 we opposed then Prime Minister Howard raising the threshold from $1,000 to $10,000. When last in government we sought to lower it back to $1,000 but we were prevented from doing so by the Liberal-Nationals. Now, yet again, we are rising to the challenge in opposition. This is not a hypothetical for us. The standard we are seeking to write into law is one that we have nationally voluntarily met for the last five years. Since 2011 federal Labor has had a policy that every donation over $1,000 should be declared. I believe it is time for the government to step up and show the same commitment to transparency and the same respect for the Australian people—not just complying with the legal minimum but meeting the best ethical standard, not just complying with the legal minimum but meeting the best practice standard.

Lowering the threshold is just the start. Labor's reforms will also stop donation splitting. When groups with deep pockets spread their donations out across different states they can sneak under the bar in every jurisdiction. It is wrong that an individual or company can write nine $13,000 cheques to nine different branches of a political party and the Australian people would never know about it. That is over $110,000 off the books in a year, $330,000 across the term of a government. We will also put a stop to the convenient fiction that donating to an associated entity is different to donating to a party.

The legislation makes some other common sense changes to the integrity of the system. Foreign citizens do not get a vote in Australian elections. And foreign companies should not be allowed to donate to Australian campaigns. Transparency in our donation system is critical for protecting against state or non-state actors who seek to influence our political system for advantage. Labor's legislation will ban foreign donations—full stop. I recognise there are other problems in this area to which we do not collectively have the answer. This legislation does not solve the challenge of foreign money being washed through Australian entities. We need to work with our agencies, including our security agencies, to look at the full transaction chain. This is a difficult issue, and jurisdictions grapple with this around the world.

Our legislation will stop direct foreign donations, but what we need to do is not just tick the box of a technical test; we need to thoroughly evaluate the origin of a donation. And where there is genuine apprehension, we need to act on it. This is vital to maintaining public confidence in our system. No-one can seriously talk about tackling foreign donations unless they acknowledge this issue which I have just outlined today in the parliament. The coalition has not caused this problem but I invite them to work with us to help solve it. If the leaders of this country know that there is a risk that foreign governments or non-state actors will wash money through Australian entities, then it is not good enough to say that we have not yet so far come up with a mechanism to solve it. We must solve this soft-influence problem.

Under our legislation the upper limit for anonymous donations will be restricted to $50. If you want to buy a new 'It's time' T-shirt for your parents without giving your name—fine. But that is where it stops. And of course with public funding allocated according to votes received—it is one of the key components of our democratic system—the legislation will keep that strong and relevant. If we are to use taxpayer funds in public funding of elections to help defray the reliance upon private donations, citizens can expect their taxes to be used transparently, not as a business model to be opportunistically exploited by some who seek to run parliament. This is how—and our measure will do this by tying funding to declared campaign expenditure—we prevent serial candidates from putting their name on the ballot paper but not putting in the effort to seek office. No-one should be running for the houses of parliament just to gain a windfall at taxpayers' expense.

Making these changes in law is one step: upholding and enforcing these laws is the next. It is why this legislation also contains tougher penalties for failures to disclose. It should not be a calculated risk to take the cash up-front and debate the consequences later. Disclosure should be in-built, automatic and instinctive, and it should be as close to real time as possible. This means as close to instantaneous as the technology in accounting allows. This has to be the next step because when we say the Australian people have a right to know, they have a right to know before they cast their vote. Australians should not have to wait until the election is a distant memory to find out who gave what. Our rules apply to business, banks, unions and wealthy individuals.

Of course, no party is without fault on this issue. None of us can say that we have always been saints. Everyone has talked about cleaning up the system. This legislation, though, is a chance to go beyond talk; it is a chance for the government to work with Labor and for the parliament to work together to put the right to know into law. If the government stand in the way—if they block this reform—they will give every single Australian another reason to be cynical about politics. If they want to be happy to be part of the problem, as long as they profit from it, people will mark them down. It is this simple: secrecy or reform—part of the solution or part of the problem.

We want to make the system stronger and fairer, and just get on with it. In the Labor Party, we know where we stand: more transparency, more accountability, tougher penalties and a better system. We need to respect the Australian people; they are the ones we are here to serve. We all need to do better. I have absolute faith in the Australian people—they will recognise this legislation for what it is: an important first step to rebuilding confidence in the whole system. I ask the government to work with us for the sake of the nation.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:27): I am very pleased to second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.

Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This, for me, is important legislation, and I call on the government to bring it on for debate. Transport, and particularly rail transport, together with telecommunications, are central tenets for those of us who live outside the regional cities in terms of infrastructure. In my electorate, after years of being a safe seat and political inaction, it is very hard for us to manage the two problems we have with public transport, particularly our rail, and our telecommunications. So, as an effective local and independent member of parliament, I am very pleased to be able to represent my community with this private member's bill.

Today, I present this particular legislation in this place. Later on, in the Federation Chamber, I am going to be talking about another aspect of public transport: the problems we have with the Australian Rail Track Corporation and its maintenance of our Melbourne to Albury train line. Last week I spoke about the importance of a vision and the need for high-speed rail connecting Australia. And a couple of weeks ago, when we were last here last year, I talked about the need for a charter of budget honesty so that when government brings legislation to this House it actually pays attention to the impact on rural and regional Australia. So today's legislation is a very specific example, when I ask the government to pay particular attention to its infrastructure and how that impacts on rural and regional people.

In presenting this legislation, it is an amendment to the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the social and community benefit considerations that are assessed when Infrastructure Australia looks at the value of infrastructure projects, audits existing infrastructure, complies lists of infrastructure priorities and develops infrastructure plans. The amendment requires Infrastructure Australia to consult with the community when developing corporate plans and to consider the future needs of users when providing advice to the minister; the Commonwealth; state, territory and local governments; investors in infrastructure and owners of infrastructure.

One would think this was obvious. One would think that people are at the centre of everything we do. It used to be that way in rural and regional Australia. It used to be that we had strong governments and oppositions that put people first. But we have moved to a case where money, return on investment, the finances and the market drives us, rather than putting people first. What I am proposing in this legislation is that we bring the two together. Of course, the market is important and, of course, the economy is important, but equally so are people are. We are skilled and clever enough to be able to join it at the hip. That is what this infrastructure bill is about. We do the economics, we do the finance, we consult with people and we make sure that, in the long term, the people's needs are addressed in exactly the same way as we make sure that the economic roles are addressed.

The role of Infrastructure Australia is to provide advice on nationally significant infrastructure priorities. The current act has a strong focus on the economic and productivity considerations of infrastructure. However, little attention paid to the social benefits of these proposals. This bill amends the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to require Infrastructure Australia to evaluate the social and community benefits of infrastructure projects and to give equal treatment to the economic and productivity gains.

The intent is that, by Infrastructure Australia assessing the social benefits of infrastructure projects, benefit connectivity—including public transport—would be considered a priority for rural and regional Australia as well as for freight movement. I just want to say that again, because it is really, really important: connectivity. The current proposal on the list for Infrastructure Australia is that we build an inland rail route, which has got great support and is really important. But what we need to understand is the connection between freight rail and passenger rail. The real concern that I have is that freight rail, because of its economic consequences, will get precedence and priority over passenger rail. We already have enough problems in my electorate in Northern Victoria with passenger rail. We do not want to see it become worse because freight rail gets priority.

Under the current arrangements, Infrastructure Australia's consideration is heavily weighted towards the economic productivity gains of infrastructure and does not fully account for the social and community needs. The current infrastructure priorities list includes many rail projects. Among those in rural and regional Australia, the focus is only on improving freight movement and not providing passenger services. The driver for infrastructure outside of capital cities is measured in economic terms and not in social good. This is unlike projects in the cities, which largely focus on easing urban congestion, for example, or other clear social benefits. We need the same level of judgement for our country people as we do for our city people. The example that I bring before the House is the Inland Rail project, which is currently on the priority list. It should deliver improved passenger services as part of its social benefit, as well as improved economic services.

In bringing this to the House and in bringing this bill on, it is part of what I am calling on the government to pay attention to. What is its vision for rural and regional Australia? What is the legacy that this particular government wants to leave when it has finished its term in parliament? Sure, we want economic development. But it is much, more important than just doing the economy: we want an enhanced social and community environment and we want an environment where the people of Australia, just like the opposition speaker has just said, trust the government because we believe that the government has got our social and community needs driving at the centre of its policy.

Part of my work as a local Independent, and effective member of parliament, is to bring to this parliament private members' bills that say, 'Government, when you're doing legislation, consult with the community and then tell the community that you have actually understood how this impacts on us.'

There are two particular examples that I want to briefly touch on. Later on this week, the government is going to be talking about its childcare legislation—the omnibus legislation. There are so many examples within that omnibus legislation where rural and regional issues have not been taken care of and where the government has not done its homework to look at the unintended consequences on rural and regional Australia.

I have to say that what makes me so frustrated is when I see really important legislation that is going to help us with our inland freight that nobody in the system has integrated—I particularly call on the board of Infrastructure Australia to do a report, to talk to our communities about how you have worked out the connectivity with our communities and how inland freight is going to work with passenger rail, to give us in 50, 60 and maybe even 100 years an integrated system of transport that works for us.

In bringing my comments to a close, I in my office and my staff—I acknowledge my staff who are here today and thank them for their work—can see the problem and we are amateurs in this. I ask the professionals, those in Infrastructure Australia, and the board to bring your expertise to this particular issue. And in your designing of rural and regional infrastructure make sure that you put the people at the centre, that you measure it, and that you do your audits for the long term to make sure that there is true and real benefit for those of us who are going to benefit from the economics. We also want to benefit throughout our community life and through our, in this case, public transport.

I am delighted to present this private members' bill. I look forward to working with the minister and bringing it for debate at a later time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?

Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:36): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Mr KATTER ( Kennedy ) ( 10:37 ): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I would first like to acknowledge the people who initiated this bill: Banduk Marika, a First Australian artist, who travelled a long way to be with us today, and we thank her as one of the fighters here; Christina Davidson, CEO of the Association of Northern, Kimberley and Arnhem Aboriginal Artists, who has travelled a very great distance to be here today; Gabrielle Sullivan, the CEO of Indigenous Art Code; Robyn Ayres, CEO of Arts Law; and Leesa Watego, Copyright Agency/Viscopy director.

I must emphasise to the House that my colleague the member for Mayo and myself are only acting today as agents for these people in bringing this bill forward, and we do so with very great pride in moving for a betterment of a situation for First Australians.

There are those amongst Australia's First Australians who say, 'The Europeans came here and took our land and now they are taking our culture.' In the last election campaign, my political party went to the polls on 'Australia not for sale'. But there can be nothing more that demonstrates that your country is for sale than when my senior staffer, my media chief, went to four souvenir shops in Cairns and found that over 95 per cent of the supposed Aboriginal souvenirs were not Aboriginal at all; they were from overseas. I would ask the member for Mayo to hold up an example of what we are talking about. One looks genuine, and it is made in?

Ms Sharkie: Thailand.

Mr KATTER: Yes. And the one on the far side from me is made in Australia; it is a genuine artefact. If you are selling souvenir rubbish, you will get paid a couple of dollars. If you are selling a genuine Australian artefact from the oldest culture on earth—as you will find it says on arrival at Cairns airport—then you deserve a hell of a lot more than 10 bucks for a bit of rubbish churned out by a manufacturer in China, Indonesia, India or wherever.

When I was minister with these responsibilities for the Queensland government, as I was for a number of years, it came almost within two months of me being appointed to the position that the first problem we had was on the 21 per cent of Australia. We first First Australians—and excuse me for identifying, as I often do, as a First Australian—are supposed to own 21 per cent of Australia but since we cannot get a title deed, we do not actually own anything. That 21 per cent of Australia is just a glorified national park. I have case after case in my office where people have applied for a title deed—sometimes it is possible; some governments move some legislation and make it possible—but it is so difficult that it just does not happen. I do not want to go sideways on the issue of land, but land and culture are inexplicably tied together.

In the case of land—magnificent work which should have got a Nobel Prize, and it was very controversial when Hernando de Soto did not get the Nobel Prize—Hernando de Soto wrote a book on why Peru, the Philippines and Egypt, three countries on three different continents, live in grinding poverty and why similar places like Japan are flying forward at 100 miles an hour. The difference is you cannot get a title deed. It is possible in those three countries to get a title deed. The average time period is 6½ years and you go through 237 processes, most of which require a lawyer. Needless to say, there are not too many title deeds being issued. So if we cannot make money from the land—and you say to newcomers to Australia that you own the water and you own the land, that you are the Crown—I remind you, Mr European, that you come from England. We stood up in 1215, we Englishmen, and told the king that we own the land not you, Mr King. When the king disagreed, we had a very good habit of cutting his head off.

We are here today to talk about our culture and the theft of our culture by a government that has sat idly by and done absolutely nothing about this. In fairness to Minister Scullion, he has shown a very positive response, but we would hope that this legislation is taken up by the minister and taken forward by the government. I think the member for Mayo would agree with me on this.

If you want to have a look, I am going to demonstrate the difference. I am sick of buying for the kids clap sticks that do not clap, bullroarers that do not roar, boomerangs that do not come back and woomeras that will not mount a spear. I ask the House to listen to the sound here. This is from Indonesia or China; I cannot remember which.

The instrument was then play ed—

Mr KATTER: That is imported. This is the genuine article.

The instrument was then play ed—

Mr KATTER: The poem that we were taught at school when I went to school in Queensland was: 'Didjeridu, didjeridu, blackfella blows through a length of bamboo; to the regular beat of an ironwood stick, click-click, click-click, click-click; and the sound of his breath is the ghost of a drum with the madness of apathy muffling its thrum; and all that the world ever wanted or knew is dark while you hark to the didjeridu.' With a didjeridu today, made in China, we do not listen to the muffled thrum; we listen to an entirely different sound.

In Cairns, in Alice Springs, in Darwin, in Brisbane and in Sydney the vast bulk, 90 per cent, of the stuff being sold is rubbish which our First Australians get nothing out of. In fact, today, the organisations that are represented here today—God bless them—and that we are moving this legislation for pointed out that the kangaroo on all of these artefacts is the same one that was on the Qantas aeroplane. They just got a picture and put it on everything and then said it was Australian. If there be one thing that we First Australians be allowed to keep and own, it is our own culture.

There are just some technical issues that I would like to address. The dancing hats, I am told, are not being made on Mornington Island. There are supposed to be two places in the Northern Territory where they are being made, but I cannot establish where they are. So it may be that dancing hats are no longer made in Australia. They are highly technical—you would have all seen the big pyramid-type hat—and very complicated to make. The ones that I have purchased are made out of emu rope, made from emu feathers—part of them is made from emu feathers. But there are none on sale on Mornington Island, and it was the only place selling them. I am told that there are two other places.

What is happening is that our cultural inheritance is vanishing. It is vanishing as we speak. I can point out to you the benefits that accrue. The paintings of the Kaiadilt ladies—we know them as the Bentinck Island ladies, but their technical name is the Kaiadilt ladies—were selling, and I think they still are, for $8,000 wholesale. Those six or seven ladies are getting very, very old now. They have made a huge reputation for themselves, and deservedly so, for their world-standard art. They bring maybe $1 million a year into the economy of little tiny Mornington Island. It is the only export earnings that we have. Please do not take it away from us.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?

Ms Sharkie: I wholeheartedly second this motion, and I reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (11:53): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the report of the committee relating to referrals made in October and November 2016.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

Mr BUCHHOLZ: by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's first report for 2017 on four proposals referred in October 2016.

The first proposal is the construction and upgrade of indirect fire support facilities for a Defence project. This involves replacement of some artillery and related systems at eight locations around Australia. The proposed facilities include simulators, repair parts stores, shelters and hard stands. The project cost estimate is $57.1 million exclusive of GST.

The committee heard concerns that the proposal may lead to potential contamination from firefighting foams previously used at RAAF Base Williamtown, Puckapunyal and Lavarack Barracks.

The committee is satisfied that Defence has taken adequate prevention measures, but has recommended improving its consultation processes with affected communities.

The second proposal is the enhancement of security at Australian Federal Police facilities around Australia. Recent incidents at state police stations led the AFP to assess the vulnerability of its own premises. Eight locations have been selected for upgrades. The project cost estimate is $39.4 million exclusive of GST.

The report notes that some works were undertaken prior to the committee's inquiry. The commencement of works prior to parliamentary approval would normally be regarded as a serious matter. In this case, these works had a degree of urgency due to concerns for officer safety. The committee is satisfied that the works occurred in good faith.

The third proposal examined is the construction of a building for electronic warfare operation support at Defence's RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia. The works include laboratories, workshop areas, storage, some office space, a hard-stand area and car parking. The project cost estimate is $24.91 million exclusive of GST.

The final project examined is the Woomera range remediation facilities project. There are several aspects to this project—a new range control centre, a communications interface building, a maintenance and storage facility and 17 instrumentation and communication sites. The project cost estimate is $48.64 million exclusive of GST.

The committee recommends that the four proposed projects should proceed.

I commend the report to the House.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (12:20): I rise somewhat belatedly because it has taken some time for the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 to get to a debate in this chamber. To that end, I move an amendment that has been circulated in my name, which reads as follows:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that the Government failed to articulate a policy for the aviation or maritime sectors at the 2016 Federal election;

(2) notes the Turnbull Government's failed WorkChoices On Water legislation would have seriously undermined the Australian maritime sector;

(3) notes in particular that the Government has:

(a) failed to rule out further laws in coastal shipping that would aid the displacement of Australian crews on the Australian coast with foreign crews doing the same work for reduced wages and conditions;

(b) failed to outline its response to the High Court's decision to overturn the Government's attempt to circumvent Parliament's intention to give priority to Australian jobs in our offshore oil and gas sector;

(c) actively worked to facilitate the replacement of Australian maritime crews by foreign crews for permanent work in Australia, by arranging rapid visas, skills recognition and access to ports in cases such as the MV Portland in January 2016; and

(d) previously considered relaxing air cabotage arrangements that could have the effect of displacing Australian flight and cabin crews with foreign crews on lower wages and conditions while working in Australia; and

(4) notes that the Government and its expert agencies have repeatedly acknowledged the obvious point that criminal and security vetting of foreign aviation and maritime workers is much harder than for Australian workers; and

(5) calls on the Federal Government to develop as a matter of urgency aviation and maritime policies, ensuring that such policies prioritise jobs and skills for Australians while also facilitating more reliable background checks".

Security standards in Australia's maritime and aviation sector should have nothing to do with politics. Public safety should be the only priority. For most of the time, that is the case, whether the Labor Party is in government or the coalition parties are in government. Laws and regulations relating to the security of ports and airports need to be tough and clear so that Australians and criminals who might wish us harm are in no doubt of the strength of our resolve to keep our nation safe. The legislation which is before us today would toughen background checks on workers in airports and in the maritime sector.

Under existing arrangements, people applying for aviation security identification cards, or ASICs, and maritime security identification cards, or MSICs, undergo background checks, and those checks are designed to establish whether applicants have links with terrorist organisations. This bill would add an extra layer of checking, to ensure that applicants have no links to serious and organised crime. Therefore the opposition will not oppose this bill, but we will be proposing amendments to this legislation, both in the form of the second reading amendment that I have just moved and in the form of consideration-in-detail amendments, because we certainly take security seriously.

I have had the privilege of serving as the transport minister, and, when that was the case, we introduced a range of legislation to ensure that security was maintained at our ports and airports. We have quite an enviable record in this country, and it is appropriate that we take advice from experts when it comes to aviation and maritime security. We are, however, very deeply concerned indeed about the glaring inconsistencies in the government's approach, particularly when it comes to maritime security but also, of course, aviation security, and that is the point of the second reading amendment that I have moved.

When it comes to ideology before common sense, what happened during the last term of government, in both the aviation and the maritime sectors, was that various people, some of whom have moved on—I speak of Andrew Robb, the former minister for trade—had a real flat-earth approach to competition in the sector. They refused to acknowledge that both aviation and transport are global industries that have within them, however, national interests and that governments around the world understand the importance of having either a domestic aviation industry or a domestic shipping industry and therefore put in place regulations that ensure that that can occur.

If we have unilateral disarmament, if you like, in the form of regulation unlike the rest of the world, there is the potential for Australia, as an island continent located where we are in the world, to not have an aviation or a maritime sector. When it came to aviation, the former minister had a view that I know was opposed by many—particularly in the National Party and regional members—which was that you could open up cabotage, remove the preference for Australian aviation, in the northern part of Australia, as a first step, and foreign carriers could come in, and that would somehow solve problems by providing reduced airfares. Of course, what Qantas and Virgin—and the various subsidiary airlines that they operate—stated would happen was that you would have a withdrawal of those sectors that rely upon cross-subsidy, if you like, within the aviation sector from operating in northern Australia. So you would have a withdrawal of Qantas and Virgin, effectively, from those regional airline routes and they would just concentrate on the highly profitable Sydney-Melbourne and Sydney-Brisbane and other major routes. So routes to and from places like Mount Isa, Cloncurry, Charleville and Bundaberg, and other routes in regional Queensland, in particular, would stop. Roma is the first step on the way to further destinations. In New South Wales, the same thing happens with routes like Taree and Grafton and other routes; you would have a withdrawal. Then, of course, the next step would be to just allow them to fly to Adelaide. And, because the Australian companies could not compete with those airlines offering fares based upon, essentially, Third World wages and Third World conditions and safety checks—safety checks that are not of the same standard that we have here in Australia—you would have a competitive disadvantage for Australian carriers and they would withdraw. That would lead to ongoing consequences for the people and the economies of regional Australia.

But in the end, that proposal was resisted and defeated in the early period of the Abbott government. It was defeated because of the principled actions of some people in the coalition and of the Labor Party, but also, of course, from those regional communities, themselves, who understood what the consequences were. There are also consequences for national security because the truth is you cannot have the same level of checks that are required with ASIC and MSIC in the transport sector as you have for foreign employees. The same thing has happened with the government's Work Choices on water legislation in the maritime sector: legislation that was defeated in the parliament. The explanatory memorandum for the bill outlined that it would result in the replacement of the Australian flagged vessels with foreign flagged vessels and Australian crews with foreign crews being paid cheaper wages and conditions. And that, indeed, was the advice that the department was giving out to people like Mr Milby, the cruise ship operator in the Kimberley who gave evidence before the Senate committee which led, in part, to that legislation been defeated.

But what has happened is that the government has circumvented its own legislation and has ignored the national security implications behind that, let alone the issues of safety. The national security implications were completely dismissed when the government, for ideological reasons, agreed to a temporary licence to replace the MV Portland. The MV Portland operated between the smelter at Portland and the Western Australian coast. It picked up the natural resources and went around Portland—one top and then back again. It was anything but temporary. For more than a decade, that ship went from one location to another, to and fro, employing Australians—Australians who lived in the local community and people down on that southern coast of Victoria. Yet, on the replacement vessel, people were granted special migration visas and cleared to take that ship to Singapore to be sold off. It was replaced by a foreign vessel without any clear indication about what the implications were for our national security.

That move destroyed Australian jobs. And today, we are being asked with this legislation to toughen the background check on Australian mariners in the name of security but, on the other hand in practice, this government is allowing for temporary licences to be issued with minimal checks—a free-for-all around our coasts. Where do these ships go around our coasts? They go into our ports and into our harbours. The idea that there are not national security implications! I say this in the sincerest way possible, we have not sought to engage in a campaign that is provocative about these sorts of issues. When a ship is in Sydney Harbour or in Brisbane port or in Port Phillip—and many of our harbours located in the most densely populated areas of Australia—you want to be pretty clear and pretty sure that the security of those people who would seek to do us harm is looked at. Do not say on the one hand, 'We want a free-for-all, we want to get rid of the Australian flag, we want to get rid of the Australian crews around our coastlines,' and say on the other hand, 'If you're an Australian working at a port, we're going to further toughen up even further the security clearances that you have to go through.'

So I say to the government, and I say to the minister who is here in the chamber, with respect: Minister, you have a great responsibility. I know that you have taken these issues seriously and have been prepared to sit down and engage with people in the sector and that is to your credit. But put the ideology of the free market aside because it does not work for Australia's economic interests. It does not work for our environmental interests because every one of the major incidents around our coastlines—the Shen Neng and the other disasters that have occurred—have all had something in common: they have all had a foreign flag on the back of the ship. They have all had a mariner who has said that they were not aware that they had to turn through the reef at the appropriate time, and they have crashed into the reef causing a great deal of damage. Australian mariners know the coastline, they have the skills, they have the training and they have the long-term commitment to the national interests. But it is also in our national security interests to have an Australian maritime sector.

I offer again to work with the government in the national interest to get outcomes that would see a growth in the Australian flag—rather than a reduction in the Australian flag—around our coasts. Because—and you do not have to spell it out; common sense tells you—there are people in the world who seek to do us harm, who seek to cause incidents. We know that our security agencies work very hard, and they are doing a great job. I am someone who has been prepared to call it out as I see it; our infrastructure is obviously an area of vulnerability. That is why it is fine to toughen up MSIC cards and ASIC cards—and we will respond constructively to any proposals that come forward. But you cannot do that on the one hand—say we are going to have increased checks of Australians—and on the other hand actually replace those Australians with people who cannot possibly have undergone the same level of checking. That is why this amendment also refers to the High Court decision which overturned the government's legislation seeking to undermine the priority to be given to Australians working in the offshore oil and gas sector. It is almost at the point where it just defies common sense—when the court decision came down, we had Senator Cash give an ideological statement in the Senate, opposing the court's actions—what could go wrong in the oil and gas sector in terms of security! I mean seriously; if people do not understand that, then there is something very, very wrong.

In the last campaign, Labor put forward a comprehensive shipping policy. It covered the full range of maritime issues including security, industry taxation arrangements, workforce planning, cruise shipping, ports, the Australian International Shipping Register and Labor's approach to coastal trading. We have an aviation policy that sets out all of our policy principles for that sector. Indeed, we have put in place mechanisms that have seen a considerable growth in the Australian aviation sector, and I think the success of Virgin and Qantas, as the two major carriers—particularly Qantas as our major international carrier—has been something of which we can all be proud. When it comes to issues of aviation and shipping, that—in part—is how the world sees us as well. I think it is important that the flying kangaroo on the back of a plane is seen in Los Angeles, Beijing or London, or in Johannesburg, Bangkok or Tokyo—anywhere in our region. That really says to people: this is an iconic Australian company. That has a great deal to do with promoting our nation. And we know also that one of the things we can point to in that sector is security and safety, and our proud record. Australian carriers and Australian ships have an extraordinary record, second to none in the world, We should make sure that we recognise that.

This bill would amend the Transport Security Assessment Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Act. These acts concern the issuance of MSICs and ASICs. It comes to us as a response to a recommendation from the National Ice Taskforce for greater rigour in guarding against drug smuggling in ports and airports through a toughening of background checks. The opposition agrees strongly with the need to secure our borders against drug smugglers. We would also like to see the government increase its focus on the treatment of people whose lives are being ruined by drug addiction. Drug abuse is a serious problem affecting tens of thousands of Australians. Law enforcement is important, but so is helping the victims of dealers of hard drugs to recover from their addiction, so they can improve their own lives and make positive contributions to our community.

This legislation came to the House in the 44th Parliament, and I noted then the opposition's concern about whether the addition of an organised crime check to the existing terrorism check might inadvertently reduce the level of rigour that applies to the terrorism check. That remains our concern, and we put that on the record. For example, when people are engaged in security checks through our airports, they are concerned with a very narrow task—which is keeping people on those planes, in those airports and in those areas safe. That is their one priority. They concentrate on what they are looking for because, if they were looking for everything then, by definition, they would be diluting the concentration on the issues at hand—and when it comes to the threats to our airports and ports, the main issue at hand has to be terrorism. It has to be. And so we seek assurance from the government that this broadening of the definition will not dilute that concentration.

For many years, the number of Australian flagged vessels operating in coastal trade has been an issue. Labor tried to arrest the decline by having the Revitalising Australian Shipping package; a series of mechanisms working with industry, with unions and with the sector, including the Navy, around those issues. We think that is particularly important. There is a security element to the importance of our national legislation as well.

In a submission to a Senate inquiry into the increasing use of flag of convenience vessels in Australian waters, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection rang alarm bells about the use of overseas vessels. It said:

There are features of FOC registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit.

This is the government's own department. It went on to say that in many flag of convenience nations, there was limited transparency about the identity of the owners of vessels. It said:

Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make FOC ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups.

This means that FOC ships may be used in a range of illegal activities including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports.

The security advisers, the Department of Immigration and Border Security, under the coalition government, could not have been any clearer in their advice to the government. There is greater security risk in using overseas vessels whose crews have not been properly vetted, than it is to use Australian vessels, with clear ownership lines of accountability, crewed by Australians whose backgrounds have been carefully examined by the authorities.

The government chose to ignore this advice about the growth of flags of convenience rather than Australian flagged vessels, yet today it wants our support to toughen checks on Australian transport workers. In the words of the great John McEnroe: 'You cannot be serious.' You have to look at both. You have to look at proper checks on Australian workers but also take account of those alarm bells. I note that this minister is conscious of those issues, and I hope that we can work together to get reforms. The amendment that I have moved is very important in addressing these issues.

A High Court judgement last August exposed the government's zeal for facilitating the replacement of Australian workers with cheap overseas labour. In December 2015, the government granted working visa exemptions to overseas workers on oil and gas rigs in Australian waters. The government argued that oil rigs were vessels; they were not rigs at all. It wanted to help employers to cut costs by hiring overseas workers instead of Australians. In August, the High Court ruled the exemption invalid and declared that the minister for immigration had exceeded his authority. The government has made no formal response to the judgement. But, in comments to The Guardian, reported on 31 August last year, the minister for immigration made no apologies for exceeding his authority to put Australians out of work. Instead, he complained that requiring overseas workers to go through the working visa process would increase costs.

Given these comments, it is clear that we need to do much better. The temporary licences for vessels such as the replacement of the MV Portland with a foreign vessel crewed by overseas mariners should not happen again. The government should rule out changes to air cabotage, because it is very clear that that is not an appropriate change at all. Also, the government has exceeded the changes which are in the bill. This arises from the National Ice Taskforce. There is a big change here. Instead of having the recommendation as 'serious and organised crime' the legislation refers to 'serious or organised crime'. That is a very important legal distinction to draw. I will be moving an amendment to change this back to the original intention of the experts that were put forward, and I would ask the minister to seriously consider supporting that amendment in the spirit in which it is moved.

We are not moving amendments to legislation such as this just for the sake of it. The minister would know that, in the area of transport and security, I have a record of more than a decade in this place of not attempting to just play politics with it. The amendment that we will move is to bring the legislation in line with the expert recommendations. If you expand it to 'serious or organised crime' as opposed to 'serious and organised crime' you really widen what you are looking at in terms of the impact on the workforce. Overzealous consideration—with the greatest intention—of what that means means that, if you are looking at things that are not serious, you, by definition, are undermining the intent of the bill. So, when it comes to the consideration-in-detail debate we will move that amendment and hope to get the government's support.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Chesters: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (12:51): I am pleased this afternoon to rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. Just before I start on the notes I had prepared, I would like to make a quick comment on the member for Grayndler. I welcome his concern about the seriousness of terrorism and the issues that this nation faces, but there is one thing that I would like to point out. The member for Grayndler talked about the highly profitable Sydney and Melbourne airway route. That may very well be true, but I would note that someone flying from Sydney to Melbourne tomorrow could get a flight for $102 on Tiger. If they were prepared to not have any check-in luggage, they could get that price down to $89. You can even do better than that. If you went on Jetstar and you had luggage, you could travel from Sydney to Melbourne tomorrow for the princely sum of $86. And if you were able to get away with just your hand luggage for an overnight stay, you could fly from Sydney to Melbourne tomorrow for $69, including GST. If you were coming back from Melbourne to Sydney the next day without any check-in luggage—with just your hand luggage—you could get back for $69. This is what competition does and it is something that we should never forget. So, although it may be a highly profitable route—and I hope it is, because we need highly profitable companies—to be able to get a return fare today, in 2017, from Sydney to Melbourne and back for $138 is what competition does and we should never, ever forget that. So many people think that when you deregulate things the prices go up. The airline industry is a classic example of what happens when you allow the forces of competition into markets.

I go back to the specifics of the bill. The coalition government has made a specific commitment to ensure that people with a history of serious or organised crime would not receive security clearance to work at Australian airports or seaports, and that is exactly what this bill addresses. The purpose of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and also the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 in order to reduce criminal influence at Australia's airports and seaports by strengthening what is known as the aviation security identification card and also the maritime security identification card. Those are identification cards that are issued to people, including foreign nationals, who legitimately require unescorted access to secure aviation and maritime areas, including offshore oil and gas facilities, and have successfully undergone background checks. The problem that this legislation attacks is that currently there are different eligibility criteria applied to the aviation security identification card and the maritime security identification card. This can result in persons convicted of the same criminal offence being treated differently in the aviation and maritime sectors. It is that anomaly that this legislation addresses.

There are five specific things that the bill does. Firstly, it creates an additional purpose in the aviation and maritime acts in relation to access to aviation and maritime areas and zones to prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious or organised crime. Of course, serious crime does not have to be organised. Secondly, it establishes a regulatory framework supporting the implementation of harmonised eligibility criteria for both cards which will better target serious or organised crime related offences. Thirdly, it will clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of both cards for applicants and holders. Fourthly, it will allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across both schemes. Fifthly, it will insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to a court as to the parliament’s intentions. These amendments taken together provide for the implementation of new eligibility criteria for both cards that better target serious and organised crime. The new eligibility criteria will be specific to the aviation and maritime regulations, will introduce new offence categories, such as offences under the anti criminal organisation legislation, foreign incursion and recruitment offences, the illegal importation of goods, and interfering with goods under border control. Further, this bill will continue to give effect to Australia's international obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and the international ship and port facility security codes. It will also improve the government's ability to combat transnational and organised crime.

Importantly, this bill implements one of the government's key strategies: to fight the dreaded menace of the drug ice. Last December, when it released its final report, the National Ice Taskforce, which was commissioned by this government and is chaired by Ken Lay, made 38 separate recommendations. In response to the final report, one of the recommendations is adopted in this legislation, and that is to continue to protect the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria for holders of both cards. This bill gives effect to the element of the government's comprehensive action across these five priority areas, which together intend to tackle Australia's ice problem head on.

There is another area of specific concern regarding our nation's borders and the exportation and importation of goods. I draw your attention to the issue of car thefts in Australia. Firstly, when it comes to car thefts there has been some good news. There has been, over the last decade, a significant reduction in the number of cars stolen in Australia. In fact, in New South Wales we have seen a greater than 50 per cent decline in the number of cars stolen per head of population. We should be truly thankful to the New South Wales Police and the New South Wales government for the work that they have done in reducing that rate of car theft.

But what is of concern is that over the last 12 months, we have seen that trend reverse. Over the last 12 months, we have seen car thefts across the nation increase by 8.4 per cent. Last year, across the nation we had 55,571 cars stolen. That is almost 1,000 cars a week, six cars every hour or one car stolen in this nation every 10 minutes. If we were to speak for just an hour on this piece of legislation, there would be six cars across the nation that are stolen.

A real concern is the breakdown of what is happening with car thefts across the nation. Over the last 12 months, we have seen another decline in car thefts in New South Wales. According to the official figures, over the last 12 months there has been an 11.7 per cent decline in New South Wales. Car thefts are down from 13,465 in the previous 12 months to 11,893.

But in contrast to New South Wales, in Victoria we have seen a truly remarkable increase in car thefts. We have seen a 31.4 per cent increase in Victoria in 12 months alone. They have gone from 14,371 to 18,884. If we compare figures from New South Wales, a larger state with a greater population and more cars on the road, there were just over 11,000 cars stolen, but Victoria is approaching 19,000 cars stolen. If someone with a car registered in New South Wales were to drive across the border into Victoria, on the latest numbers they are 66 per cent more likely to have their car stolen there than in New South Wales. With such similarities between those two great states, something is seriously amiss in Victoria.

Along with this recent increase in car thefts, also of concern is the very large increase in the number of cars that vanish completely. A decade ago, only 15 per cent of stolen vehicles were never recovered; so 85 per cent were recovered. But this year, 31 per cent of stolen vehicles were never recovered. We have doubled the number of cars that are never recovered after they are stolen. Again, those numbers are most dramatic in Victoria.

In New South Wales, over the last 12 months, we have seen a decline of 18.6 per cent for vehicles that are never recovered. Again, that is a tremendous effort by the New South Wales government and the New South Wales police. But in contrast, in Victoria we have seen an increase of 35.9 per cent—virtually a 36 per cent increase—of cars stolen and never recovered.

What is also of concern is that the value of cars that are never recovered is increasing. The cars never recovered are now worth $20,500 each, and it gets worse. It is now shown that in years gone by most cars were stolen from shopping centre car parks, but now it is reported that up to 70 per cent of cars are stolen from outside someone's residence, and many times the car thief breaks into the house. Not only do we have the cost of the car theft and the violation it involves, the breaking into of someone's house is an added crime.

In fact, the estimated annual cost of car theft in this nation was $763 million—that was from the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council—but that excluded the cost to the community associated with police investigations, court costs and corrections. So we are looking at over $1 billion in costs to this nation from car theft.

One of the issues we need to look at is our borders. There are many reports that many of these cars that are stolen and disappear are actually being exported. It was noted back in 2005 that one upstanding citizen was jailed for almost two years for stealing 48 cars, mostly Toyotas, for the export of parts to Lebanon under his business. He made a profit of between $2½ thousand and $5,000 per car. That is a $400,000 theft, and yet he only got two years.

One of the concerns pointed out is our export process practices for cars. I quote from Peter McRae, who is an internationally recognised customs broker and senior lecturer in customs banking, who says we have black holes in our export process. He said:

Exporting a car in this country is a simple matter. The exporter calls a shipping company or a freight forwarder directly and advises that they wish to export a motor vehicle from Australia. The booking is made, the car/s are secured inside the container, the Export Declaration Number is processed through Border Force [Customs] before the container is loaded onto the vessel and exits our shores.

He also said:

The paperwork does not require the exporter to record a VIN/Chassis number for the vehicle/s and even if the VIN/Chassis are recorded, there is no requirement from the state levels … that the registration be cancelled, produced … or verified prior to exporting …

Secondly, there is no requirement from the federal level … that the VIN/Chassis be entered, recorded, saved or retained to verify against police registers … as being stolen.

This growing problem is something we need to tackle on our borders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (13:06): Of course the amendment should be agreed to, because the shadow minister, in moving it, is absolutely correct to criticise this government for their failure to articulate any sort of policy, really, for the aviation or maritime sectors at the recent federal election. This government has been completely hopeless when it comes to taking any action on maritime and aviation security.

If you want any proof of that, just take a look at this bill that we are finally debating that was first tabled in this parliament back in February 2016. It has taken a year for us even to be in a position to debate this supposedly very important bill that the government is claiming implements a recommendation from the ice taskforce report from December 2015. They have dragged their heels on getting this bill to a point where it can be debated in this House, and no doubt that is because they know how exposed they are on aviation and maritime security matters, and how hopeless they have been for their entire period of government, since 2013. I think they are probably also quite worried about debating this bill because it does shine a very clear light on what this government has tried to do when it comes to people working on the water, and that has been to seek to implement Work Choices on water.

This is a government so committed to its ideological attacks on employment security for Australian workers that it has supported a situation where you can have people working on the water able to not have the same entitlements to Australian wages as people working on land. If you want an example of that, just look at what happened with the MV Portland last year. In the middle of the night, 30 or so security guards, according to eyewitness reports, went on to that ship. In the middle of the night, they dragged people out of their beds and walked them down the gangplank, to replace that Australian crew with a foreign crew—to say, 'We don't want an Australian crew getting paid Australian wages; we want this firm to have a foreign crew being paid foreign wages.' It was an absolute disgrace. But what it proved is that under a Liberal government you cannot expect the government to stand up for Australian jobs, for Australian wages or for Australian conditions.

The Liberal government will always sell Australian workers down the river. The Liberal government will always support attacks on Australian working conditions. Look at what they did when they had the chance during Work Choices in 2006. Look at what we saw, as a consequence of those law changes back then: Australian workplace agreements where conditions and pay were completely undermined, where conditions were lost, where people were pitted against each other—where Australian workers were pitted against Australian workers. Look also at what they have done with their failure to crack down on exploitation and misuse of subclass 457 visas and other foreign-worker visas. Labor supports firms having the ability to use foreign labour where there is a skills shortage or for other proper purposes, but this government has allowed the exploitation of 457 visa workers to be rampant on its watch. Look at the Work-Choices-on-water provisions that were debated in the last parliament. It is absolutely right for the shadow minister to have moved this amendment to highlight the fact that, when you look at all of those things, this government's credibility on working people and on Australian jobs and Australian wages is seriously in doubt, and also to highlight the fact that the government's credibility on transport security is seriously in doubt.

This is the situation that we are in. The Turnbull government has failed to rule out further laws on coastal shipping that would aid the displacement of Australian crews on the Australian coast with foreign crews in that same location doing the work for lower wages. That is what we are actually talking about here.

There is a pretty stark difference between the coalition's approach and Labor's approach. Labor believes in Australian jobs. Labor believes in Australian jobs with Australian wages. Labor will always stand up for working people and for Australian pay and conditions. On the other hand, the coalition will always do whatever they can to attack working conditions, to weaken workers, to make workers less powerful, and to seek to take away the protections that people have fought for for more than 100 years in this country.

We have done this very clearly. If you want to see another example of the difference in approaches between Labor and the coalition, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has been very forthright in defending penalty rates in this country. On the other hand, one of the first things that the Liberals did on coming into government was to decide to commission the Productivity Commission to look at the workplace relations framework with a view to looking at, among other things, penalty rates. The Liberals set up an inquiry that had the aim of undermining penalty rates. They do not believe in penalty rates. In fact, a number of Liberal members of this House, past and present, have made public comments calling for Sunday rates to be scrapped, for example.

On the other hand, Labor has very steadfastly and publicly stood by the rights of working people to be paid fair compensation for working unsociable hours. It is absolutely the case that working on a Sunday is different from working on any other day. And if any member of this House thinks differently, they can think about all of those Sunday morning church services. They can think about all of those Mother's Day events or Father's Day events that they have been able to go to. They can think about all of the time that they have spent with family on Sundays. Why should anyone who is missing those opportunities not be compensated fairly for doing the work that they are asked to do on a Sunday, I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker? And of course the answer is: they should be compensated fairly. It is different working on a Sunday from working on a Tuesday morning; it absolutely is. And Labor understands this. It is a shame that the coalition absolutely does not understand it and is prepared to continue to attack the working conditions and pay of people that it purports to represent—as was the case with Work Choices on water that this coalition government brought forward in the last term of parliament.

I do not want to see another MV Portland. I do not want to see another situation where you have people who are doing nothing but defending Australian jobs being escorted in the middle of the night down gangplanks. I do not think Australians want to see that either. I do not think Australians want to see Australian workers being replaced with foreign workers. I do not think people want to see Australian wages being undercut by foreign wages. I also do not think people want to see situations where people like the crew of the Portland are left unemployed, in a country where unemployment is a problem and underemployment is a significant problem.

I met some of the crew of the Portland. They came to Brisbane last year and were speaking with people there to tell us about what had happened to them. And of course I met some of them when they were having their jobs embassy outside of this parliament in February last year. When I went down to that embassy, I have to say, I did not see many coalition MPs down there talking to the Australian workers who had had their jobs and conditions displaced because of policies of this government and because of the behaviour of unscrupulous employers. I did not see any of the coalition MPs down there speaking with people who did not know whether they were going to be able to get another job in the industry in which they had worked since they were in their late teens or early 20s. I did not see the coalition criticising the MV Portland or expressing any concern at all about the future of those crew members and their families now that they had been in this position where they were walked down a gangplank in the middle of the night, having lost their jobs. And I certainly do not hear much concern from coalition members and senators about the serious problems that we have in this country with Australian jobs.

Deputy Speaker Goodenough, as you and I know, it is the case that while there are hundreds of thousands of people on the unemployment queue there are a million more who are on the underemployment statistics. Those million more people have an hour of work a week, but they want more and they cannot get it. It is a disgrace in this country that so many people are struggling to find work. We are a wealthy nation, we are a nation that is highly skilled, we are a nation that needs to do better in relation to making sure that people do have the skills that they need for the work that is available and we are a nation that needs to do something about the fact that we are still having to import foreign skilled labour because of skills shortages here.

There are two problems with that. Firstly, if there are genuine skills shortages, then what is this nation doing about those skills shortages? What is Prime Minister Turnbull doing about making sure that people have the skills which they need for the jobs that exist now and in the future? The Labor opposition have been very clear. We have announced that we will be holding a skills summit and that we will be working with the vocational education sector, universities, business, unions and the community to work through this problem which we have in relation to skills shortages. The other aspect of the issue with bringing in foreign labour is that it is simply not clear that there is always a genuine skills shortage. When you have got the occupation of bricklayer on the list of occupations for which we are importing skilled labour and it has been on that list of occupations for longer than it takes to train bricklayers, that is an obvious problem. It is an obvious problem for our migration system and it is an obvious problem for our skills system here in Australia.

Unfortunately, this is a government which is more preoccupied with frolics, with fighting amongst itself, with arguments about who should be the leader and with arguments about matters that are of absolutely no interest to people sitting around the kitchen table wondering how they are going to pay their bills. It has been too preoccupied to do the hard work that is needed to create jobs here in Australia, to facilitate the conditions for the creation of jobs here in Australia, to grapple with the underemployment problem that we have as a nation and to face up to the fact that we do need to do something about making sure that people have the skills they need for the jobs that exist now and the jobs that will exist in the future. These are some of the hard problems that this government should be spending its time on, but it is simply not.

I am very pleased to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, which raises the concerns about the fact that this government has, for example, completely failed to rule out further laws in coastal shipping that would displace Australian workers and that would have the effect of undermining pay and conditions for Australian workers. It is a representative example of this government's lack of interest and lack of care for Australian jobs, Australian skills and Australian pay and conditions. Accordingly, I support the amendment.

Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (13:17): The stated intention of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 is to make our ports and airports safer to the extent that it changes the approach to regulating the maritime security identity card and the aviation security identity card—the MSIC and ASIC—respectively.

It has to be said at the outset that it leaves many areas of safety and security regulation untouched, especially in relation to our seaports and other maritime infrastructure. There are also aspects of this bill that are not sufficiently clear, and there is a question mark over the potential for these changes to unfairly discriminate or otherwise prevent people who present no genuine security risk from working in our ports or airports.

I can say from experience that there are many workers in my community who are directly affected by these changes, to the extent that an MSIC is a prerequisite of their employment. At a time when employment conditions are difficult—and in Western Australia they are as bad as they have been in a quarter of a century—any change that affects a person's opportunity to work should be approached with great care. I have assisted people both in the past and more recently who have had their MSIC renewal denied and were then forced to seek clarification or apply for administrative discretion. Needless to say, that presents a situation of enormous stress. Taken altogether, it is not clear whether this bill really serves the entire purpose intended or does so in the most effective way, or whether it strikes the right balance in making both administrative and security improvements while first ensuring that affected workers are not subject to some new and potentially capricious obstacle to work.

While this bill tinkers around the edges, we should keep in mind those areas of safety and security regulation that are not being made the focus of review and reform. It is disappointing that a number of serious matters of maritime security, in particular, continue to go unaddressed by this government or, in some cases, are positively undermined by the actions of this government—and I will come to that in due course.

Last year, there was a fairly rapid Senate inquiry into this bill as it existed in the 44th Parliament nearly a year ago. The report of the inquiry raised a number of issues in relation to the proposed law's purpose, scope and effect. As other members have pointed out in the debate already, there is a very basic but important inconsistency between the way the National Ice Taskforce highlighted a need to focus on serious 'and' organised crime and the way this bill refers to serious 'or' organised crime. Clearly they are not the same. The common practice for law enforcement agencies is to use the criterion 'serious and organised crime', and that is the formulation in the relevant Senate report and in the submission from the Attorney-General. It is hard to see why that formulation would not prevail and, on that basis Labor, through the shadow minister, have indicated we will move amendments to correct this.

One of the reasons I am very happy to take part in this debate is that I represent an electorate that has both a seaport and an airport. It is well known that Fremantle is WA's principle cargo port, through which passes virtually all of WA's container trade, as well as bulk commodities such as petroleum, grain, alumina, iron ore, mineral sands and so on which pass through the outer harbour. In 2015-16, total port trade through Fremantle was 34.91 million mass tonnes, with a value of more than $26.1 billion. But, perhaps less well known, Jandakot Airport, a regional airport in my electorate, has at various times been the busiest airport in terms of flight movements not just in Australia but also, I think, in some years, in the Southern Hemisphere.

It has always been the case that seaports and airports are points of entry and access when it comes to the illegal importation of goods, including the importation of illegal drugs, and proper regulation of these areas—their physical and systemic security measures—and oversight of all personnel with access to ports, airports and seaports are critical to maintaining safety and security. In that context, it has to be recognised that these changes to MSIC and ASIC arrangements leave some of the most significant security risk areas untouched. In the first place, there are already parts of the maritime supply chain that are not covered by the MSIC requirements—for example, those working in container packing yards, or senior and middle managers in stevedoring or trucking companies. What is more, and what is worse, this government has actually pursued and implemented policies that increase the risk in Australian ports and at offshore maritime facilities by weakening Australian coastal shipping and by encouraging the use of foreign crews and flag-of-convenience shipping.

The cynical use and expansion of the temporary license provisions under the Navigation Act have inflicted significant damage on the viability of Australian owned and flagged ships and, therefore, on the employment opportunities for Australian seafarers. As we consider a bill that purports to strengthen the MSIC and ASIC screening arrangements, let us just remember that foreign holders of maritime crew visas are not subject to the same checks as apply to Australian workers that hold an MSIC. We have seen several examples in recent years of foreign flagged vessels that operate in flagrant disregard of basic workplace standards, and this creates safety and security and environmental risks. It really does not matter how robust the MSIC arrangements are if an increasing number of ships and workers are not covered by them and if, in future, we face the prospect of having no ships and workers covered by them because there are no Australian flagged and crewed vessels.

A strong coastal shipping industry is important to ensure the ongoing presence and capacity of Australian flagged vessels to serve our freight needs, to sustain maritime jobs and skills in this country and to give Australia a sufficient merchant marine capacity. Shipping is our link to the world. We are an island nation. Our economic and strategic engagement depends on shipping; our ports are the apertures through which our import and export lifeblood flows. Make no mistake: if the government continues to inflict death by a thousand cuts on Australian coastal shipping, the economic, strategic and environmental consequences will be substantial.

Beyond our own compelling national interests, we should not forget that Australian seafarers and port workers, through the Maritime Union of Australia and the International Transport Workers' Federation, play an active role in fighting to secure fair and safe working conditions for people to go to sea or work in ports the world over. That is in keeping with our national character. That is something that Australians have always done. We are concerned not just about our own circumstances and about safety and security in our own country but more widely. That has been an incredibly honourable tradition and a great contribution by working men and women and their organisational representatives in this country. Seafarers have always been, and will continue to be, a class of worker that is especially vulnerable. Last October, for the second time in two months, the Australian Marine Safety Authority detained a foreign vessel for not paying its crew. The condition of the ship was disgusting; there was virtually no food on board. This sort of occurrence is becoming more common as the use of foreign ships increases and as Australian flagged and crewed coastal shipping is subject to further pressure, diminishing support and regulatory neglect. If it goes unaddressed, this trend will weaken both our economic sufficiency and our national security, and it will reduce our capacity to respond to humanitarian emergencies in our region. As the shadow minister for infrastructure, the member for Grayndler, mentioned quite rightly, it is also likely that such changes will put us at greater risk of major environmental disaster.

It is also relevant in considering the security of our ports to question the blind haste with which these vital pieces of infrastructure are being sold off. Rod Sims, the Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has been openly critical of such asset sales, pointing out that, when states seek to maximise asset prices for ports, they are laying the ground for inevitable freight price increases, which in turn flow through the entire economy. State governments obviously have an interest in maximising those prices. I know in Western Australia there is a particular interest because the Barnett government wants to cover its quite considerable blushes in relation to nearly $40 billion worth of state debt. But it needs to be remembered that, if you max out those asset prices on sale, a private operator has to recoup those funds and it does so through freight prices—and freight prices flow into everything. Mr Sims has been particularly critical of the proposal that a private operator in Fremantle would be given the contractual opportunity to control the development of the outer harbour in future.

In an article from September, Kenneth Davidson listed a number of critical views from people with long experience of port operations. While deploring the sale of the port of Melbourne, former ports boss Michael Frydrych said:

I have always operated on the premise that ports are vital to the development of countries and should play a supporting role to the rest of the economy.

John Lines, the managing director of ANL, said in the same article:

We remain opposed to the privatisation of state-owned monopoly ports.

Port and other State asset privatisation are taxes by stealth which will be paid for decades to come.

That is an important point: they are taxes by stealth. You take a monopoly asset, you sell it into private hands, you get no competitive benefits and the pricing approach that a private operator takes in the interest of maximising profit, which is their primary interest, flows through into the general economy. It is a tax by stealth, and you cannot argue against taxes and the influence of taxes and give away private monopoly infrastructure when you know that that will be one of the economic consequences.

The reality is that the privatisation of Fremantle port, as part 2 or part 3 or part 5—it is hard to tell—of the crazy plan to create a privately operated toll road in the form of the so-called Perth Freight Link, would achieve the privatisation of our future in Fremantle and the south-metro region of Perth. Port assets and their landside links should be controlled, planned, delivered and adjusted over time in the broad public interest. When they are subject to the commercial interest of a private owner in the case of a privatised port or a private owner in the case of a privately operated toll road, we as citizens give away the opportunity to have those critical assets regulated and controlled in the broad interest. One of the things that people in Western Australia have not cottoned on to sufficiently is that, if we see the Perth Freight Link become a privately operated toll road, it will inevitably involve concession deeds as part of that contractual arrangement. Those concession deeds will be given so that the private operator of the toll road has confidence about its revenues into the future, and that will stop a future state government from being able to introduce public infrastructure of that kind.

The reality is that Australia's strongest economic and strategic position is one in which our ports are administered and developed in the broad public interest, and that requires public ownership. It is a scenario in which coastal shipping should be supported and maintained as a vital transport capacity involving, more than anything else, Australian ships and Australian seafarers.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and if the member for Fremantle wishes to continue his contribution he will be able to do so then.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:15): In summing up, I would like to thank speakers from both sides of the chamber for their contributions to the debate. The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 introduces an additional purpose to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 of combating serious or organised crime at Australia's airports and seaports. The aviation security identification card and maritime security identification card schemes are a critical part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors.

This bill will prevent the exploitation of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities by individuals with links to serious or organised crime. It will ensure that such persons cannot gain access to aviation, maritime and offshore facilities. These amendments will provide for the regulatory framework to support the introduction of new and harmonised eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes that better target serious or organised crime related offences. The revised eligibility criteria will be set out in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003.

In addition, to the amendments already mentioned, the bill will clarify and align the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders. It will allow for regulations to be made prescribing penalties for offences against the new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with the existing penalty provisions across the ASIC and MSIC schemes. And it will insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to a court as to parliament's intention.

This bill gives effect to the government's election commitment to strengthen background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious or organised crime cannot gain access to our airports or seaports. This will in turn keep illegal guns off our streets and keep our communities safe. Previously, people with a serious criminal history were able to obtain a security clearance to work at our airports and seaports. This will no longer be possible with implementation of these legislative amendments.

In addition, the bill will also complete a key action identified in the government's December 2015 response to the final report of the National Ice Taskforce, to prevent serious and organised crime by strengthening the ASIC and MSIC schemes. Organised crime, in particular the importation of illegal drugs, is a serious threat to our nation. These changes are a substantial step forward in the fight to disrupt the distribution of these drugs, including ice.

This bill was previously introduced in the House of Representatives on 11 February 2016. It passed the House on 16 March 2016, but lapsed at prorogation on 17 April 2016. Following referral to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in the last parliament, the bill was recommended to progress to the Senate without amendment. The Australian government agrees with this recommendation and thanks the committee for its consideration of this complex issue. The Australian government does not agree with the assertion in the additional comments to the report and does not agree with the recommendations presented by the dissenting report.

The revised eligibility criteria, which this bill enables, is the culmination of extensive stakeholder consultation across the aviation and maritime sectors. This consultation concluded that extending the current ASIC and MSIC schemes is more efficient and effective than developing a new and separate scheme to counter serious or organised crime at our airports and ports. The existing ASIC and MSIC schemes are well understood by industry, and introducing a new scheme would likely impose additional costs and lead to confusion and inadvertent noncompliance.

The proposed changes will lift the threshold for less serious and lower-level criminal offences. As a result, more applicants are expected to be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC, reducing the impact on their employment and increasing the staff available to employers.

This bill not only improves the government's ability to combat transnational and domestic organised crime; it also strengthens the scheme's existing national security assessment and the ability to protect Australia's airports and ports against acts of terrorism. I thank members for supporting the bill to ensure the earliest possible implementation and therefore impact of these vital measures.

The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:31): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) and (8) to (11) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Serious or Organised", substitute "Serious and Organised".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 15), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 18), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 22), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".

(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 25 and 26), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 4), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

The amendments that I have moved in this first section are amendments relating to the distinction between 'serious or organised' and 'serious and organised'. This is not just a question of language; it is a question of language translating into action when it comes to legislation. The significance of this is that the amendments that I have moved are consistent with the recommendations of the National Ice Taskforce and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report from 2011. That is the basis of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. These amendments would replace the statement—including the title, it must be said—of the bill throughout this legislation. It is a uniform change and will impact the aviation and maritime bills in the same manner. It is important that we get the language right when we are adding new purposes to important legislation. We need to ensure that we are targeting identified problems in a precise manner. If we do not do that, we are inadvertently weakening the intent of the legislation by broadening the definition so widely that it undermines the intent of the bill to respond to organised crime involved in the trafficking of ice, and that was the basis of this legislation.

We on this side of the House are being constructive. We have not said that we will oppose the legislation. However, we have said, and given clear notice, not just to this minister but to the previous minister, that we have concern here that, essentially, what has happened is that whoever has drafted this legislation has been sloppy about it. I say that because it is the nicest term that can be used. It is better that this is an inadvertent error rather than something that is a calculated decision to abuse the circumstances of the trafficking of drugs to try to widen, in an improper way, the scope of the people who will be caught up by this definition.

As I said in parliament when this bill was first put forward during the last term, we are concerned that the mission of transport security remains tightly focused around managing the post 9-11 security environment. Currently, that is about safeguarding against unlawful interference at our regulated airports and seaports, and really focuses on terrorist-related activity—and that is the purpose of this legislation. These amendments are intended to widen that purpose to include targeting serious criminality which may not be unlawful interference of a terrorist type, which is what is in the previous definition in the bill. Now, no doubt, serious criminality should be targeted. It is of a different focus to terrorism—hence, this legislation. We acknowledge that and we are being constructive in the arguments that we are putting forward. So whilst Labor will not oppose the widened purpose—widening it from terrorism to serious criminality, particularly in the context of the trafficking of ice and other serious drugs—it is important that we take up the experts' opinion. The views of the experts who conducted the Ice Taskforce and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report should be the basis of the legislation, rather than us taking it upon ourselves to widen it inappropriately. (Extension of time granted)

The problem with what the government has done here is that the language has changed from 'serious and organised crime' to 'serious or organised crime'. We believe that we should follow the experts. Frankly, I will be surprised if the government rejects these amendments, because this is an opportunity for the government to have consensus around this legislation. That is certainly always my preferred option. If the government does not agree to the amendments here, perhaps the government might take it upon itself to move the same amendments in the Senate as government amendments. We do need to get this right and wherever possible we have tried to create a circumstance whereby transport security is above the day-to-day argy-bargy of politics that often infects this fine democratic institution here in the House.

I refer to the Ice Taskforce report. I say to the minister, who was not responsible for this bill, that this is an opportunity for him as the new transport minister to show how much better he is than the transport minister that he replaced and suggest that he read the report. This transport minister should not try to attain more than transport ministers any further back than that—because, put simply, the Nats will never have the big picture—but he can be the best National Party transport minister. That is the opportunity that he has here. The Ice Taskforce report uniformly talks about targeting 'serious and organised crime'. The Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report of the inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures always refers to 'serious and organised crime'. Both reports refer to it throughout. This is something that the current Minister for Justice should recall, if the transport minister wishes to consult with him, because he was a member of the joint committee at the time. Indeed, this is what the joint committee unanimously recommended to this parliament:

The committee recommends that the scope of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 be widened to include serious and organised crime in addition to terrorist activity and unlawful interference.

All we are suggesting is that you go to that unanimous recommendation. Indeed, the Attorney-General's Department's submission on this bill during the previous parliament uniformly talked about targeting 'serious and organised crime'. The law enforcement agencies, such as the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, almost always refer to 'serious and organised crime'. The Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, the coalition government's legislation, which Labor supported and which was carried through both houses of parliament last year, refers to—guess what, Minister? 'Serious and organised crime'. Indeed, the Senate report on this very bill talks about targeting 'serious and organised crime', despite the use of 'or' throughout. This is never explained. Only the bill itself uniformly talks about targeting 'serious or organised crime'. Even the department's 2015-16 annual report, tabled in the House on 7 November last year, refers to this legislation, on page 30, as targeting 'serious and organised crime'.

I commend these amendments to the House. They are important amendments. This is not a matter of semantics; this is a matter of ensuring that we truly target, in an appropriate way, serious and organised crime.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:42): I appreciate the contribution by the member for Grayndler. The government has closely considered the amendments put forward by the member but will not be supporting these amendments by the opposition. We believe that 'serious or organised' is far broader than 'serious and organised' and will capture people with a serious criminal conviction or organised crime conviction or both. So, whilst we understand the points being made by the member for Grayndler, we do not agree with his amendments. The government has committed to strengthening background-checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious or organised crime cannot obtain access to our airports and our seaports, and the inclusion of combating serious or organised crime at seaports and airports into the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 will help keep illegal guns and illegal drugs off our streets.

The government is committed—as I acknowledge that the member for Grayndler has indicated that the opposition is committed—to keeping Australia safe. We believe that stopping people with a serious criminal conviction or an organised crime conviction or both from gaining access to secure areas at airports and seaports is a crucial part of this. I accept the comments made by those opposite during the second reading debate on the bill that they are very committed to reducing particularly the amount of illicit drugs on our streets, but I do not believe that you can say, on the one hand, that you want to reduce illegal drugs in our community and, on the other hand, water down attempts to intervene in the drug trade. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction and the government is not supporting the amendments put by the member for Grayndler.

Can I just say more generally in relation to the National Ice Taskforce: as the member indicated, the 2015 final report of the National Ice Taskforce echoed the concerns of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and Intelligence at its inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime. Now, it noted that the growing use of ice in regional Australia must be recognised and appropriately addressed. The legislation before the House is helping to address that issue. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that from your personal experience in your own electorate that you know the impact of illicit substances, particularly ice, is one of great concern in our regional communities and also of great concern in particular in our Indigenous communities. I think that ice has managed to penetrate parts of our community that we thought would never be impacted by the use of illicit drugs, so I do take the contributions from those opposite very seriously—just as the government takes its responsibilities very seriously in relation to its response to the National Ice Taskforce.

We believe this is a step in the right direction in reducing the opportunity for ice and other illicit substances to reach Australia, but also a step in the right direction in preventing individuals and criminal gangs or syndicates which traffic those illicit drugs or, indeed, traffic illegal guns, from having access to our major transport links.

So I just repeat that the government will not be supporting the amendments from the opposition.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:46): I am somewhat disappointed that the minister has indicated the government will not support these amendments, given the spirit in which they have been moved. There is no question that the growth of ice use, particularly in regional communities and, as the minister has said, in Indigenous communities, is having a devastating impact. This is a drug that certainly was not around just a few years ago, and governments have to respond to changes in circumstances. That is why, whether our amendments are carried or not, I indicate that we will support the legislation that is before the House.

But I do note that when the minister addressed the joint parliamentary committee report which preceded the National Ice Taskforce reports in 2011 and 2015 respectively, he spoke about them recommending addressing serious 'and' organised crime. They were the words that he used, because they are the words that are in those reports. They are the words that are in the department's annual report. They are the words that the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, that was passed by this parliament, includes. They are the words that the Attorney-General's Department's submission on this bill in the previous parliament talked about. Consistently, they are the words that are appropriate to be used, and not just to widen without any proper consideration the implications of changing from serious 'and' organised crime to serious 'or' organised crime.

We really need to concentrate our efforts if we are going to have a correct impact on it. I would accept the fact that in this chamber the government has a majority to deny the opposition's amendments that I have moved here. But I would say that the minister should ask for advice from the department or from the AFP—or anyone would do—to support the change in this definition. It is my view that part of the reason for there being able to be a bipartisan position on security issues moving forward is that the politicians are not playing politics with these issues but listening to the experts. If the experts came to me and suggested that we were out of step with what they themselves had previously recommended, then that would be worthy of proper and appropriate consideration. But that has not occurred. Every agency, from the department, through the security agencies and through to the National Ice Taskforce and the joint committee have recommended wording that is consistent with what we are putting forward in these amendments. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:50): With that, we should not delay the House unduly. The government strongly believes that the bill, as it is presented to the House, is meeting the intention of the reports that the member for Grayndler referred to previously. The legal advice that we have received is that using the term 'and' could be interpreted as requiring both elements to be proved—that is, both elements of being serious 'and' organised as distinct from being serious 'or' organised.

Again, I acknowledge the spirit in which the member for Grayndler has approached this issue, but simply disagree on the best way forward with the legislation. Serious and organised crime, I acknowledge, is certainly a term in common usage—probably in many ways it is a colloquial term, used quite widely. But the fear within the government is that use of the word, 'and', as I said, would require a legal interpretation of meeting both elements of being serious and organised as distinct from serious or organised.

Certainly, in preparation of the bill for the House, the Australian Federal Police were consulted and accepted the use of the term 'or'. The government will not be supporting the member's amendment.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:51): I will not delay the House for too much longer before we vote on this. I will simply point out two things.

Now, firstly, I appreciate the fact that the minister has outlined, for the first time, some rationale for the government being fairly intransigent on this issue. But the problem I have with that and with the explanation he has just given is that the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, which passed the parliament last year, refers, with Labor's support, to 'serious and organised' crime. It defies logic that, somehow, this has arisen in circumstances that legislation was carried. That is legislation that is relevant to national security concerns and, in particular, specifically addresses the Australian Crime Commission and its operations. It seems to me that if this legislation is carried as it currently reads—being put forward by the government—it will put it out of step with the other legislation.

Frankly, people will read that, and there is an opportunity where legislation is inconsistent, particularly legislation that has an impact on prosecution of criminal activity—for people to point towards those inconsistencies between the two pieces of legislation. I expect what we will see before this parliament, which should have happened before now, is that if they are going to change the definition then amend the Australian Crime Commission legislation that has been carried by this House—it will be in need of amendment in order to bring it into consistency with this definition.

Secondly, what has to happen as well, with this, is for draft regulations to apply to this legislation, and the regulations to specify relevant offences that would be deemed to rule out people being eligible for ASIC or MSIC cards. I would have thought that the revised definition we are proposing here—going back to a definition that is consistent with legislation that has previously been adopted in this parliament—would be more appropriate. If the government has any concerns about any specifics, then the appropriate way is to address it in those regulations.

I know from experience that determining what is included in those regulations to be a relevant offence is something that could be the subject of considerable debate and making sure it is got right. But, at all times, it has to be focused on terrorism or very serious organised crime activity. It cannot be such that people who have committed minor infringements get caught up in this. What that will do is undermine the purpose of the legislation.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:06): by leave—I move amendments (7) and (12), as circulated, together:

(Amendment to motion for second reading to be moved by Mr Albanese)

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that the Government failed to articulate a policy for the aviation or maritime sectors at the 2016 Federal election;

(2) notes the Turnbull Government's failed WorkChoices On Water legislation would have seriously undermined the Australian maritime sector;

(3) notes in particular that the Government has:

(a) failed to rule out further laws in coastal shipping that would aid the displacement of Australian crews on the Australian coast with foreign crews doing the same work for reduced wages and conditions;

(b) failed to outline its response to the High Court's decision to overturn the Government's attempt to circumvent Parliament's intention to give priority to Australian jobs in our offshore oil and gas sector;

(c) actively worked to facilitate the replacement of Australian maritime crews by foreign crews for permanent work in Australia, by arranging rapid visas, skills recognition and access to ports in cases such as the MV Portland in January 2016; and

(d) previously considered relaxing air cabotage arrangements that could have the effect of displacing Australian flight and cabin crews with foreign crews on lower wages and conditions while working in Australia; and

(4) notes that the Government and its expert agencies have repeatedly acknowledged the obvious point that criminal and security vetting of foreign aviation and maritime workers is much harder than for Australian workers; and

(5) calls on the Federal Government to develop as a matter of urgency aviation and maritime policies, ensuring that such policies prioritise jobs and skills for Australians while also facilitating more reliable background checks".

(Mr Albanese)

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 5 and 6), omit "Serious or Organised", substitute "Serious and Organised".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 15), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 18), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(7) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 4, insert:

4A After section 126

   Insert:

126A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, under any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to an area or zone:

   (a) section 35;

   (b) section 36;

(c) section 36A;

   (d) section 37;

(e) section 38;

   (f) section 38A;

(g) section 38AB.

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

   (a) reconsideration by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

   (b) review by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

   (a) the Secretary or the Secretary AGD to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

   (b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

   adverse security assessment and qualified security assessment have the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

   Secretary AGD means the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007 (the AusCheck scheme).

(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 22), omit "Serious or organised", substitute "Serious and organised".

(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 25 and 26), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(11) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (line 4), omit "serious or organised", substitute "serious and organised".

(12) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 19), after item 12, insert:

12A After section 201

   Insert:

201A Review of decisions relating to security checking under the regulations

(1) This section applies if regulations are made, under any of the following sections, dealing with the security checking (including background checking) of persons who have access to a zone:

   (a) section 105;

   (b) section 109;

(c) section 113;

   (d) section 113D;

(e) section 113F.

(2) The regulations must include provisions allowing a person in relation to whom a security check is carried out to seek:

   (a) reconsideration by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

   (b) review by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD of a decision in relation to a security identification card; and

(c) review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision by the Secretary or the Secretary AGD on review of a decision in relation to a security identification card.

(3) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section permits:

   (a) the Secretary or the Secretary AGD to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment; or

   (b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review an adverse security assessment or a qualified security assessment other than in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

(4) In this section:

   adverse security assessment and qualified security assessment have the same meanings as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

   Secretary AGD means the Secretary who is responsible for administering the scheme prescribed for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007 ( the AusCheck scheme).

The opposition has moved these amendments in two blocks to try and minimise the disruption to the activity of the House. We believe that, just like our last set of amendments, this set of amendments is very reasonable indeed. It goes to the review of decisions made in security checking. This second group of amendments will put in place the legislative basis for existing review mechanisms. There are, of course, existing review mechanisms available, but, as part of the change package that is before the parliament, the government is proposing to harmonise what are currently different appeal systems for the ASIC and the MSIC. Holders of the ASIC, the aviation security identification card, will have a clearer system of review rights which is equivalent to the existing system which applies for holders of the MSIC, the maritime security identification card. The amendments will retain the new uniformity between the maritime and aviation systems.

About a quarter of a million Australians have an ASIC or an MSIC. For many, the access to those cards is literally a precondition of their employment and their livelihood, to enable them to look after their families. The amendments that I have moved, one of which applies for aviation and one for maritime, will simply require that regulations made after this bill passes into law contain a review mechanism that either already exists or is proposed by the government as part of the harmonisation. Inserting in the respective maritime and aviation security acts a requirement for regulations to include a review mechanism provides an extra level of assurance that the system will include reviews where an adverse finding is made.

When you are doing legislation like this, extending the scope of scrutiny pertaining to the issue of maritime and aviation security identification cards, it is reasonable that, at the same time, there be assurance given. Many of the quarter of a million Australians who have an ASIC or an MSIC will be concerned that somehow they will inadvertently get caught up, in what I believe is in contravention of the government's aim here—and the opposition shares that aim—in having appropriate security arrangements around our airports and seaports.

I believe that the amendments we are advancing here are worthy of support. I think the government should consider them. This is an example of the government having the opportunity to seize parliamentary process to make the legislation that it proposes better. Common sense suggests that, where people, in a spirit of goodwill, come up with suggestions that will improve legislation, governments should not be stubborn and just say, 'That's coming from the opposition; therefore that's a bad idea.' This is a good idea. This is about providing certainty. This is about building on the government's good idea of harmonising the processes for the appeal system for ASIC and MSIC that it says it has. That is a good idea. So let us make it better by carrying these amendments, which the opposition commends to the House.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:11): The government will not be supporting these amendments from the opposition, while I certainly appreciate the sentiment of the member for Grayndler and offer him this reassurance that the changes presented in the bill will not remove any of the existing appeal rights for applicants. As the member for Grayndler would know, the new eligibility criteria to be specified in the regulations will introduce new offence categories, such as offences arising from antigang or criminal organisation legislation, illegal importation of goods, interfering with goods under Australian Border Force control and foreign incursion and recruitment.

As the member has indicated, and others have spoken about today, this bill strengthens the government's ability to tackle the supply of the drug ice and the importation of those precursor chemicals which are used in its manufacture and the individuals in the criminal gangs or syndicates who seek to traffic those substances. As the new criteria will focus the schemes on serious criminal activity, applicants with minor or low-level offences will only become ineligible when a significant term of imprisonment has been imposed. This will mean, importantly, that these people may be issued with their cards more quickly, lessening the impact on their employment and increasing the number of staff who will be available to employers in the industry.

While I acknowledge the member for Grayndler's contribution, I offer him that reassurance that the changes will not remove any of the existing appeal rights for applicants. I understand that the opposition has moved these amendments as it is concerned that the appeals mechanisms for ASIC and MSIC applicants in the aviation and maritime regulations could be diminished or removed in the future. I want to assure him and assure anyone listening today that the government has no plans whatsoever to diminish the appeal rights for ASIC and MSIC applicants. There is already a comprehensive appeals process in the current aviation and maritime regulations, and this process is essential to the administrative transparency of the schemes. I repeat that some people who may have a minor or low-level offence will be less likely to get an adverse finding on their application for the ASIC or MSIC in the future, whereas those with serious or organised crime offences will be the target of this legislation.

As I said, there is a comprehensive appeals process already available. The bill before us actually expands the appeals process for ASIC applicants, by providing them with the ability to apply to the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department for reconsideration of a discretionary decision, an ability that already exists for MSIC applicants. There is also, as the member is aware, an appeal right to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for ASIC and MSIC applicants, and any future changes to the appeals process will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as all changes to regulations are. I would note, just in conclusion, that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised that including the appeals process in the acts would not create any practical protection against future changes to the aviation and maritime regulations.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:15): Can I thank the minister for putting on the record during this debate his assurances about his objectives and his statement that he has no plans to change the comprehensive appeals process that is in place. I accept his comments at face value. The minister, I have found, is someone of integrity, and he would not say that unless he meant it. But the truth is that ministers come and go. The minister who introduced this legislation is gone. The minister who wrote this legislation is gone. I note the rate at which the Prime Minister has to table new sheets containing his frontbench at the beginning of question time.

The fact is our task in this place is to have good legislation that goes beyond the, what is, a very short-term survival instinct of a minister in the current coalition government. Whilst I appreciate his personal assurances and I wish him no ill will—indeed, I hope that he stays a minister until the next election, not beyond that, but until the next election; I wish him well—I do not think we can have legislation on that basis, which is why having the appeals processes included in the legislation is common sense.

It is true that legislation can be changed, but it is also true that legislation has a different status from regulations. That is the truth. When regulations are brought forward, they can often be put under circumstances whereby there are nine parts of the regulations being put forward that are agreed to but the 10th is a problem. Then, the parliament has to make a view as to whether to disallow the entire regulation, or proposed amendment to the regulation, not just one section. That is why legislation is better than regulation, because it allows for proper scrutiny in the law of the land.

What is more, when you are dealing with people's appeals rights for the consumers of that legislation—those directly impacted, and we are talking about those 250,000 people—those 250,000 people, I think, who currently have ASICs or MSICs, have a different view about what the law is, the legislation, than a forage around looking for some rather obscure regulation which may or may not be relevant to them.

This legislation is trying to get transport security on our ports and airports right for the medium term. It is true that there will have to be change to legislation at some time because we have to keep up with the threat that comes from those who would seek to do us harm or those who are engaged in organised criminal activity. They adjust their methods, therefore, we need to adjust our legislation and our response, together with the appropriate agencies, and they, of course, need to adjust their action on the ground.

Our amendments here are sensible and, I think, are worthy of consideration. We will see what happens with them in the Senate. I would have thought that if they were carried in the Senate then the government would agree with the changed legislation, particularly given the comments that the minister has made. So why not? Here is an opportunity for you, Minister—cut out the senators, get it done now, get the legislation right, and then we can save ourselves a bit of time talking to those in the other place, and say, in a bipartisan way, that this is legislation that has the support of this parliament that it deserves. But only if we get it right, and this minor amendment would make it even better legislation.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:20): As much I am charmed by the member for Grayndler's concern for my political welfare, I intend to remain as a minister for a very long time into the future with the blessing of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. Can I just indicate again that the government have considered very seriously the amendments put by the opposition. We have taken it in the spirit with which it was offered, but the government, as I want to emphasise, have no plans to diminish the appeal rights of the ASIC and MSIC applicants. I do refer the member, again, to the fact that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised that including the appeals process in the acts would not create any practical protection against any future changes to the aviation and maritime regulations. We will not be supporting the amendment.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [16:29]

(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

[take in division 150 at 16:29]

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:31): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:31): Labor will be voting for the third reading of this bill, as we just voted for the second reading of the legislation. I want to make that clear to the House. We will be pursuing our amendments in the Senate, but we would be happy if the minister has suggestions about ways in which the amendments could perhaps be adjusted to satisfy the government, because I do believe that they have been reasonable amendments, and they were put forward in that spirit. I would much prefer for transport security legislation to not be the subject of divisions in the House, because I think it is a national interest issue. So, in speaking in favour of the third reading, I commend the bill to the House but suggest that there are flaws in the legislation that could be easily fixed, and that is the spirit in which the amendments that we just proposed before the House were moved.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (16:33): I rise to support the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016—even though I note that it is 2017 before we have got around to actually debating this legislation. As I indicated on behalf of the Labor Party during the last debate, it is my view that aviation security must always come before partisan politics. This has always been my commitment. I have pursued it both in government and in opposition. This legislation provides for some simple but necessary changes that will ensure that Australia is up to date with a modern system of transport security. Importantly, it seeks to ensure the right balance between privacy and security, upholding Australia's commitment to an equal and non-discriminatory screening program.

All Australians expect that the Commonwealth will ensure that ongoing vigilance, particularly in the aviation sector, is awarded the utmost importance. Transport safety in today's world is dynamic. Governments must respond to threats as they emerge with appropriate legislative changes. This legislation will play an essential role in ensuring that this continues to occur. It will update the process that airports use for the screening of people, vehicles and goods which are already in a security zone at an airport, bringing it in line with international standards. While legislation currently permits screening of people, vehicles and goods when entering a security zone, there is no additional provision for the random screening of these when they are already inside the security zone.

Put simply, this will allow for the scrutiny of a person, a vehicle or a package which has already gone through security screening and is at the gate inside an airport or in the shopping centres that exist around international airports, in particular, but many of our domestic airports as well. It is, I think, a practical suggestion in responding to what might be future threats. The main aim of this legislation is to provide this authority, but I do note that it also reinforces that we do not have in any of our screening procedures racial profiling or profiling of any other sort. We have in place, I think, very good security provisions at airports, and this provides just another layer which, on the advice of experts, the government believes is necessary and therefore the opposition will be supportive of. The use of this authority will be a matter between the airport and the Office of Transport Security, the government body that approves transport security plans for each airport. The government has indicated that these arrangements will initially apply at nine airports, including all of the mainland capitals as well as the Gold Coast and Cairns airports, which are significant tourism destinations and, indeed, significant international arrival and departure points.

Importantly, this legislation sits alongside enhanced security awareness training for employees and contractors who work in security zones. It also authorises greater delegation of powers under aviation and maritime transport security legislation to facilitate quicker responses. While the government has highlighted removal of regulatory constraint as a benefit, Labor believes that transport security is too important to simply be an exercise in extending light-handed regulation. Regulatory settings should always be reviewed, but Labor's main reason for supporting this legislation was, first and foremost, because it updated security measures so they are consistent with world standards. The legislation also includes an additional sensible option to enhance the central objective of removing threats to aviation security.

Australia has always taken aviation security seriously. We are a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, also known as the Chicago Convention. Recently, the International Civil Aviation Organization, established under the Chicago Convention, has increased standards for screening of persons, goods and vehicles in security controlled zones at airports. Australian legislation should be updated to reflect this higher standard, which is what this bill will achieve.

We have, from time to time, responded to events that have occurred internationally. When I was the minister over the Christmas period of one year, we had what became known as the 'undie bomber', which required a very busy January as throughout the world we responded very quickly to put in place changed regulations. We also, as a result of that incident and other perceived threats, introduced here in Australia full body scanners. We undertook a process whereby we examined world's best practice. We introduced, I believe, the best system—the most thorough in the world. At the time, the shadow minister, Warren Truss, gave full support to that. There were some people who argued that we could not actually bring in full body scanners, that people had a right to refuse. The legislation that was carried before this parliament was tough legislation. Indeed, it has a no-scan, no-fly policy—the toughest of the options that were put up—and that was supported by both sides of parliament. I thank the now government, the then opposition, for the fact that they did not play politics with that. There were attempts by some, on the basis of perceived civil liberties interference, who said that these mechanisms should not be given support. We went to a great deal of trouble, including locating body scanners here at Parliament House so that members of parliament, members of the media and anyone else who was interested could go through and see in real circumstances the way that they would operate. If there had been an issue with those full body scanners, I would have had a health problem because I went through them hundreds and hundreds of times, demonstrating for others that they were essentially emitting fewer waves than people's mobile phones. Getting across the reality of a response as opposed to the potential for a scare campaign is often at the heart of security issues.

The government has done a very good job, in my view, of providing assurances so that people will not be singled out on the basis of any particular characteristic that they may have. There is a diligence contained in this legislation which is consistent with our non-discriminatory policy when it comes to all of these issues. We know from recent events, including the bombing of a Metrojet flight in Egypt in October 2015 and the attempted bombing of a Daallo Airlines flight in Somalia in February last year, that even a potential threat requires action. Of course, these changes must ensure that people's rights to equal treatment and privacy continue to be protected.

The explanatory memorandum to this legislation outlines its commitment to both of these in the formal 'Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights'. On equality and non-discrimination it says:

All people have the right to be treated equally. In keeping with Australia’s egalitarian screening regime applied to aviation passengers, selection of airport and airline workers, visitors and contractors for screening inside the security restricted areas ... of airports will be conducted on a purely random basis. Individuals will not be selected according to their race, religion, gender, or any other personal characteristic.

Because that is included in the explanatory memorandum, it effectively becomes part of any consideration by any court as to what the intention of the legislation is and provides that legislative security. On privacy it says:

In cases where a frisk search is necessary the individual may request that procedure to occur in a private room or within a screened area. A frisk search will always be undertaken by someone of the same gender as the person being searched.

Once again, that is an appropriate provision in terms of privacy.

I congratulate the department, through the minister, and the Office of Transport Security and others who have been engaged with the drafting of this legislation. They have ensured that those provisions are made explicitly clear. Inevitably, there are concerns raised about these issues, and it is best to address them up-front. We expect that airports and the government will ensure that appropriate arrangements exist and for those provisions to be applied in practice at all times. Importantly, the statement in the explanatory memorandum enshrines people's rights whilst also underpinning a robust and effective screening program.

It builds on Labor's strong track record for aviation and airport security. When in government, we oversaw the strengthening of the security regime applying to air cargo and we committed more than $54 million to install X-ray screening technology at freight depots. We also invested an additional $200 million in the nation's aviation security. Much of this funding facilitated the introduction of new and improved security technologies at airports, including not just the latest body scanners that I referred to but next generation, multiview X-ray machines and bottle scanners capable of detecting liquid-based explosives. It also provided for increased policing at airports, enhanced security procedures and strengthened international cooperation.

We improved security at regional airports, introducing legislation that requires screening of domestic checked baggage at all regional airports operating RPT services. That piece of legislation did not have unanimous support, but everyone supports it now as it was the right legislation. Some said that it would have an impact on flights to regional areas, and it did not. It did the right thing.

Certainly, what you could not have was what previously occurred. There was best-practice security at the major capital city airports, but if you were flying in from a small, regional centre on a regular passenger transport movement service, nobody checked anything as you went through. Common sense prevailed there. The government of the day prevailed, and now it is particularly important that that security is there.

More than 150 million passengers fly through Australian skies each year, and Labor will always support sensible measures that protect Australian citizens and continue the nation's reputation for aviation safety. We have an enviable safety record that is second to none. It is a credit to our existing system of regulation and all participants in the system, including airports and airlines. The bottom line is that this requires people on the ground to carry out these sorts of changes. By and large, they do so with goodwill and cooperation and with understanding that our record of aviation safety and security is something that we as a nation should be very proud of. This legislation is consistent with maintaining that record. Labor will be supporting this legislation.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:48): I thank the member for Grayndler for his constructive contribution. I also thank him for flagging the opposition's intention to support the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016.

As the member for Grayndler indicated, safety of our air travellers must be a paramount consideration for the government. We have a long and proud history and, as the member correctly indicated, we have an enviable safety record. Eternal vigilance is the key to addressing new and emerging threats, and it is highly desirable that, as much as possible, we can have a bipartisan approach to issues of national security. I am sure the travelling public and the broader community appreciate the willingness of members on both sides to work together as much as they possibly can to achieve positive outcomes in this space.

The bill will ensure Australia's transport security framework remains responsive to the evolving security environment and efficient as the transport sector grows into the future. The bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003to introduce strengthened airside security measures at Australia's major international airports and to increase the efficiency of government regulatory assessment processes.

A terrorist attack on Australian aviation would result in loss of life, severe economic consequences, public loss of confidence in both the government and the aviation sector, and would damage Australia's repetition as a safe and secure destination for international air travel. This bill will strengthen Australia's already robust aviation security system by allowing the implementation of screening in airside areas.

This security screening will be applied to airport workers who have access to passenger aircraft in the course of their employment, as well as their vehicles and any items they may carry. This new airside security screening will form part of a package of measures to mitigate the insider threat to Australian aviation and is planned to be rolled out at Australia's highest-risk airports over the next year.

Implementation of these measures will be progressive, allowing the industry time to undertake any necessary capital works and to hire and train staff. Aviation workers who are subject to security screening under the new arrangements will be afforded the same protections as passengers, to ensure they are not subject to racial or religious discrimination and that they their privacy is protected. These measures will ensure that Australians continue to enjoy safe and secure air travel and that Australia remains at the forefront of international best practice.

The bill also implements measures to allow the secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development to delegate his powers in the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to lower-level Australian Public Service employees.

Given the predicted growth in the transport sector and the evolving security environment, these amendments will give the government administrative flexibility. This will ensure that regulatory submissions can be effectively assessed in statutory time frames and that industry demands can continue to be met.

The secretary remains responsible for determining which powers under the acts are appropriate to be delegated. Significant and complex regulatory reform will remain at senior levels, while only simple regulatory decisions will be delegated to lower-level employees. Again, I thank the member for Grayndler and thank the opposition for its support. I commend this bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (16:52): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.