|
representatives vote 2017-03-30#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-04-12 20:44:29
|
Title
Bills — Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016; Consideration of Senate Message- Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 - Consideration of Senate Message - Connection to terrorism + appeals process
Description
<p class="speaker">Darren Chester</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That Senate amendments (7), (8), (13) and (14) be disagreed to.</p>- The majority voted against Senate amendments, known as [amendment nos (7), (8), (13) and (14)](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr5689_sched_35672e6a-5395-4e13-a7e9-28afb9c8286a%22;rec=0). This means that those amendments are rejected by the House of Representatives and that they'll now need to be sent back to the Senate, where the senators will need to decide whether or not they insist on them. If they do insist, then [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5689) won't pass.
- The bill relates to the ASIC And MSIC schemes. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028) explains that:
- > *A security card, known as an Aviation Security Identification Card (**ASIC**) or a Maritime Security Identification Card (**MSIC**), is required by individuals in Australia if they require regular access to secure areas of Australia’s airports, seaports, Australian flagged ships, and offshore oil and gas facilities.*
- ### What were the Senate amendments about?
- These amendments related to two different issues. First, they would have required that that certain serious or organised crime offences only be relevant to the ASIC and MSIC schemes if the offences were connected to terrorism.
- Deputy Leader of the House [Darren Chester](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester) explained that [the Government rejected this change](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.37.3) because:
- > *Limiting the application of criminal organisation legislation to a connection with terrorism will severely restrict the ability to exclude people convicted of serious offences related to criminal organisations from gaining an ASIC or a MSIC.*
- The second change made by the amendments is that they would have included the ASIC and MSIC appeals mechanisms into the actual Aviation and Maritime Acts.
- Deputy Leader of the House Darren Chester explained that [the Government rejected this change](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.37.3) because:
- > *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 ... There is a comprehensive appeals process in the current aviation and maritime regulations and any future changes to the appeals process will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as all changes to regulations are.*
- More information about why these changes were rejected is available in [this schedule](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr5689_sched_606beb5b-9107-48ac-911b-be22ee1b996a%22;rec=0).
- ### What's this bill all about?
- The bill relates to access to aviation and maritime areas and zones by, for example, changing the eligibility criteria for an Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) and Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC). Read the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028) for more information.
<p>I have had the opportunity to discuss the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm in the other place and I understand his point of view on the issue. However, the experts have told us that organised crime has infiltrated our airports and sea ports and we need to be able to tackle this problem. The amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm mean that offences consisting of being a member of a particular organisation or consorting with a convicted offender are not serious or organised crimes under the acts unless they are connected to terrorism. Limiting the application of criminal organisation legislation to a connection with terrorism will severely restrict the ability to exclude people convicted of serious offences related to criminal organisations from gaining an ASIC or a MSIC.</p><p>Only people who have been convicted in court of a serious offence under criminal organisation legislation will be captured under this bill. To receive a conviction, a court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence occurred, and this is a high bar. I note that targeting serious criminality has received support from the opposition in this House and in the other place. We would expect that those opposite would support capturing individuals with serious convictions, such as violence or extortion, involving two or more members of a criminal organisation.</p><p>The government did not support the amendment to introduce the appeals mechanism into the aviation and maritime acts based purely on the expert advice of parliamentary counsel. 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. The government has no plans—I repeat, the government has no plans—to diminish the appeal rights for ASIC and MSIC applicants. There is a comprehensive appeals process in the current aviation and maritime regulations and any future changes to the appeals process will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as all changes to regulations are.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>Labor will not be supporting the government's position on the amendments to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 and will be supporting the decisions made in the Australian Senate. We did not initiate these amendments; these particular amendments were moved by Senator Leyonhjelm of the LDP. But I will say this with regard to this issue, which goes to what I think is emerging, unfortunately, as a distinction between the government's position and Labor's position, not just as the opposition but, clearly, a majority of the Senate as well. The government is moving away from the view that when it comes to national security interests related to transport it is absolutely essential that we target effectively. If you do not target effectively, if you have a broadbrush approach, then you fail to concentrate on the task at hand. The task at hand, of course, is our national security.</p><p>It is not a disagreement between the government and the opposition with regard to the objectives on national security. Indeed, it is far from it. Wherever possible, we have tried to be cooperative and to engage with the government on all of these issues. The changes that Labor made in government to ASIC and MSIC cards and national security at our airports—where we have the most stringent regime of anywhere in the world with regard to full body scanners and a 'no scan, no fly' policy—mean that Australians can be certain that the government and indeed the parliament are doing whatever we can to keep them safe from harm.</p><p>But with regard to this particular position and with amendments coming up to change the reference to 'serious and organised', the government's first position was 'serious or organised'. Now what they are doing is attempting to make changes which would say just 'serious' crime. To get rid of the term 'organised' from the Senate amendments seems to me to be an unfortunate occurrence.</p><p>If I were the government of the day, what I would do is try and negotiate good outcomes through the Senate. There is no-one in the Senate, be it Senator Leyonhjelm or anyone in the opposition, or indeed in the House of Representatives that does not take these issues seriously. But the government are essentially ensuring, by their rejection of the Senate amendments, that this legislation does not pass this parliament today. They have another option before them, which is to accept the amendments that have been made by the Senate and implement the legislation as has been democratically determined after discussions both here in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. It was not as if I did not have discussions and raise with the minister Labor's concerns about the proposed legislation and indeed attempt to get the government to move the amendments that we subsequently got carried in the Senate in order to ensure that there was a bipartisan position on legislation such as this, which, I believe, is ideal.</p><p>By the government opposing these amendments <i>(Extension of time granted)</i>they ensure that the legislation essentially fails. The Senate has determined its view. The Senate will not be dealing with these matters tonight before it rises. Therefore, the government are walking away from legislation that could be put in place—legislation that the government have said is required and is a response to not only the Ice Taskforce but also other reports and inquiries. With respect to the minister, I think that shows very poor judgement on his behalf and on the government's behalf. But, then again, this is a government that cannot implement their agenda. They cannot implement their agenda in part because they do not have a coherent strategy. The only thing the ministers can agree on is their dress sense. In terms of actually getting on with the business of government, they continue to fail.</p><p>I would suggest that it is not too late, Minister Chester, to actually stand up to whoever it is who has come up with this rather bizarre strategy of saying, 'This legislation isn't everything that we want, so we'll have nothing.' That is the strategy that, in effect, you are adopting here. I say to the minister that if this legislation is important, if this legislation does require an amendment to the transport security regime in this country, then they should accept the amendments that have been made in the Senate. That is Labor's position and that is why we are opposing the proposition that is being put forward by the minister and why we will be opposing all of the government's amendments.</p><p>We believe fundamentally that there are elements of this legislation that are important and that we want to see put in place, not kicked down the road. This legislation was introduced in 2016. If there were serious security issues in our airports and in our ports, I would suggest that legislation should not take months and months to debate; it should be done expeditiously. What we are seeing here is the exact opposite of that, consistent with a government that, frankly, has completely lost its way. It is so obsessed with its internal divisions that it is failing to govern for the nation.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Keenan</p><p>I just want to put on the record some of the reasons that the government is concerned about these amendments and cannot accept them. The changes within our national security environment over the last few years are exceptionally significant, and anyone with the idea now that we can just carve out terrorism and think that is somehow completely separate from serious and organised crime just does not understand the way this threat has evolved. What we are finding is that terrorist suspects or people who have committed terrorist acts in particular almost inevitably have had some criminal connection prior to them being radicalised and prior to them wanting to commit terrorist attacks here in Australia.</p><p>We find this experience in Australia and we find it extensively overseas, with people who are on the fringes of organised criminal movements and people who have been involved with things from petty criminality through to very serious criminality. The idea that we can just carve out a distinction and say, 'We're going to only look at terrorism when it comes to assessing people's suitability to work in the very sensitive areas of ports and airports'—and I think everyone can appreciate how sensitive these areas are from a security sense—and, 'Terrorism is the national security issue,' and think that that is somehow separate from organised crime, is not going to provide the Australian people with the protections that they expect from their national government.</p><p>I appreciate that some in the Senate have made these amendments probably in good faith and believe that they are restricting the ASIC and MSIC regime purely to terrorism related offences, but that would be an enormous mistake. The government cannot possibly accept this, because we have a very firm understanding about the national security challenge that this country faces, and it would be very misguided for anyone in this House to think that accepting the Senate amendments would do anything other than make our people less safe.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that Senate amendments Nos (7), (8), (13) and (14) be disagreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p>
|