|
representatives vote 2017-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-04-12 20:30:16
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted to reject the [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-30.37.2) made in the Senate and replace them with other government amendments.
This means that the bill will now have to go back to the Senate, where the senators will have to decide whether they agree with the new government amendments. If not, the bill won't be passed.- This means that [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5689) will now have to go back to the Senate, where the senators will have to decide whether they agree with the new government amendments. If not, the bill won't be passed.
- The bill relates to the ASIC And MSIC schemes. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028#_Toc464652435) 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?
- The Senate amendments (known as [amendments (1) to (6) and (9) to (12)](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)), would have replaced the words “serious **or** organised” with the words “serious **and** organised”.
- Deputy Leader of the House [Darren Chester](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester) [explained that the Government rejected](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.41.1) this change:
- > *because it would only capture individuals who have been convicted of a serious and organised crime. Both elements would be required. Committing just a serious crime would not be captured in this case ... It would mean that someone who has a conviction for a serious crime but who acted alone in committing the crime would likely be able to successfully appeal a refusal of an ASIC or MSIC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.*
- ### What are the new government amendments?
- Due to the concerns raised in the Senate about the words "serious or organised crime" in the bill - for example, [there were concerns](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5689_ems_1b91c151-e31a-468c-9a9f-8ba5302d1afd%22;rec=0) that these words may let the Government stop people with non-serious convictions from getting an ASIC or MSIC - the Government introduced amendments to replace those words with just "serious crime".
- Deputy Leader of the House Darren Chester [explained that this change](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.41.1):
- > *will remove any doubt that the bill is targeting those convicted of serious criminal offences. People who have committed minor infringements will not be caught up by this bill. 'Serious crime' will still encompass organised crime that is of a serious nature.*
- ### 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.- 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.
|
|
representatives vote 2017-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-04-12 20:29:26
|
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 - Serious and/or organised crime
Description
<p class="speaker">Darren Chester</p><p>I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendments Nos (7), (8), (13) and (14), and I move:</p><p class="italic">That the reasons be adopted.</p>- The majority voted to reject the [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2017-03-30.37.2) made in the Senate and replace them with other government amendments.
- This means that the bill will now have to go back to the Senate, where the senators will have to decide whether they agree with the new government amendments. If not, the bill won't be passed.
- The bill relates to the ASIC And MSIC schemes. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd028#_Toc464652435) 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?
- The Senate amendments (known as [amendments (1) to (6) and (9) to (12)](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)), would have replaced the words “serious **or** organised” with the words “serious **and** organised”.
- Deputy Leader of the House [Darren Chester](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester) [explained that the Government rejected](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.41.1) this change:
- > *because it would only capture individuals who have been convicted of a serious and organised crime. Both elements would be required. Committing just a serious crime would not be captured in this case ... It would mean that someone who has a conviction for a serious crime but who acted alone in committing the crime would likely be able to successfully appeal a refusal of an ASIC or MSIC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.*
- ### What are the new government amendments?
- Due to the concerns raised in the Senate about the words "serious or organised crime" in the bill - for example, [there were concerns](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr5689_ems_1b91c151-e31a-468c-9a9f-8ba5302d1afd%22;rec=0) that these words may let the Government stop people with non-serious convictions from getting an ASIC or MSIC - the Government introduced amendments to replace those words with just "serious crime".
- Deputy Leader of the House Darren Chester [explained that this change](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-03-30.41.1):
- > *will remove any doubt that the bill is targeting those convicted of serious criminal offences. People who have committed minor infringements will not be caught up by this bill. 'Serious crime' will still encompass organised crime that is of a serious nature.*
- ### 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>Question agreed to.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That Senate amendments Nos (1) to (6) and (9) to (12) be disagreed to and government amendments Nos (1) to (10) made in place thereof.</p><p>I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum. The government is moving this amendment to address concerns raised in the debate that the use of 'serious or organised' may prevent people with convictions for minor or low-level crimes from gaining an ASIC or an MSIC. This amendment will remove the phrase 'or organised' from the bill, meaning that the bill will refer to serious crime only. This will remove any doubt that the bill is targeting those convicted of serious criminal offences. People who have committed minor infringements will not be caught up by this bill. 'Serious crime' will still encompass organised crime that is of a serious nature. For example, an offence of violence or extortion that involves two or more members of a criminal organisation which involves substantial planning and organisation will still be captured as a serious crime. The purpose of the bill is to not allow ASICs and MSICs to be issued to individuals who are a security risk or have a serious criminal record. I note that the member for Grayndler supported targeting serious criminality in his contribution to the debate. I also note that targeting serious criminality was also supported by opposition and crossbench members in the other place.</p><p>The government does not support the amendment to 'serious and organised' crime because it would only capture individuals who have been convicted of a serious and organised crime. Both elements would be required. Committing just a serious crime would not be captured in this case. The government has received legal advice to confirm this. It would mean that someone who has a conviction for a serious crime but who acted alone in committing the crime would likely be able to successfully appeal a refusal of an ASIC or MSIC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. An example of this exact situation is an ASIC applicant who had convictions for cultivating and trafficking cannabis and importing cocaine, including attempting to deliver that cocaine to an innocent person. This applicant acted alone when committing these offences. This applicant was denied an ASIC by the department but was granted an ASIC by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because, even though he had serious criminal convictions, he was not a risk to aviation security. This is exactly the type of applicant the government wants to stop from gaining access to secure areas at airports and sea ports.</p><p>Under the opposition's amendments, it is likely that he would still receive an ASIC from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal because he did not commit a serious and organised crime. The experts have told us that the ASIC and MSIC schemes need to be strengthened to protect our airports and sea ports against organised crime. This government is committed to keeping Australia safe. Stopping people with a serious criminal conviction from gaining access to secure areas at airports and sea ports is a crucial part of this.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>The opposition will be supporting the Senate position that has been determined and will do so for good reason. Let us have a look at how this debate has progressed. The government put forward legislation which proposed to define the target group, if you like, as serious or organised crime. We felt that that was a broadening of the definition which would weaken security by widening the net. If you do not target security issues effectively in the transport area, you undermine it. So we put this amendment forward in good faith, and the amendment was carried in the Senate to change the definition in a range of areas back to what was actually recommended. I will come to the reasons for that in a short while.</p><p>What the government is now proposing with this quite extraordinary amendment is to remove 'organised crime'. It is beyond belief, frankly, that this government is seeking to move amendments that would delete 'organised crime' from the definition and just leave 'serious' there. I am somewhat flabbergasted. Yesterday, when the minister told me in good faith what was being considered by the brains trust who have come up with this, wherever they may be, I indicated to him—as I do; I have a good relationship with him—that my gut instinct was that I thought it would be a difficult thing to support. I am somewhat surprised, frankly, that this has been brought on today—to essentially knock over the legislation, which is what the failure to support the Senate amendments is doing.</p><p>Let us have a look at who talks about 'serious and organised crime' and why that is an appropriate definition. The government refers to the Ice Taskforce report and the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report from 2011 as the basis for this bill. That is why this bill is coming about; they have recommendations from experts and, therefore, they are turning that into legislation, as is appropriate. It is appropriate in these areas to take proper advice from experts. Let us have a look at how the experts define the issue that needs legislative action. The Ice Taskforce report, uniformly, talks about targeting 'serious and organised crime'—not once, not twice, not 20 times, not 50 times but hundreds of times. The Joint Committee on Law Enforcement inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures, which this minister for justice and Customs opposite sat on—</p><p class="italic">Mr Keenan interjecting—</p><p>Or whatever the title of his position is; it is hard to keep up with things over there.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Keenan</p><p>Not really, I have been in the same position for four years.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>That is not a plus, Minister. Most junior ministers get to go up. It is true; you are where you have always been—Minister for Justice. You were a member of the committee that always—not some of the time, but always—refers to 'serious and organised crime'.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Keenan</p><p>You really are missing the point here.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>That is the basis of the legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Russell Broadbent</p><p>Order! Let us have a conversation that the public can understand, rather than one they cannot understand.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>Minister Keenan yaps away, but the fact is that that report says:</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p>That is a direct quote from the committee report that was the basis of this legislation—the committee that this minister sat on. And now they come in here—when in the Senate we moved it back to the same definition that the committee recommended be used—and they want to get rid of 'organised crime'. (<i>Extension of time granted</i>) Regarding the Attorney-General's Department's submission on this bill, the minister says, 'Well, that's not the legislative definition.' The Attorney-General's Department's submission on this bill was in the previous parliament, because this is so urgent! It has gone from the previous parliament and legislation from 2016—it is so urgent! It has been hanging around, and the report from years ago says 'serious and organised crime'. That is what the Attorney-General's Department says.</p><p>But maybe the Attorney-General's Department, the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the Ice Taskforce are not enough. Let us have a look at what the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission says: 'serious and organised crime'. That is what they almost always use in their definition. Then there is the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015, which Labor supported just last year. Guess what it refers to? 'Serious and organised crime.' Indeed, the Senate report on this very bill uniformly talks about targeting 'serious and organised crime'. Those opposite are critical of it, but they sat on the committee that was the basis of the bill. I have talked about the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and the Ice Taskforce. Even the Attorney-General's Department <i>Annual report 2015-16</i>, tabled in the House on 7 November 2016, refers to the work that they have been doing to prepare this legislation. They say on page 30: 'serious and organised crime'.</p><p>So, for reasons of keeping a proper focus, Labor's amendment will be consistent with the advice that is out there publicly—with the advice that this government has put in place itself in other legislation that has been supported in a bipartisan way in this parliament, and with the advice from the very committee whose report is the basis of this legislation—the committee that this minister sat on.</p><p>So we are very concerned that this is walking away from the advice of experts. The idea that this government is essentially prepared to stop this legislation going through—it could go through in a nanosecond without this petulant approach of opposing these Senate amendments—is, I think, a serious mistake by the government. Perhaps the minister has an explanation as to why he sat on the committee report and made that definition. We can see why he is still in the same position after all these years. I understand that. He is just busy undermining all the organisations, the infrastructure department, the Attorney-General's Department—</p><p class="italic">Mr Keenan interjecting—</p><p>There he is, babbling away there, not coming to terms with the fact that it is no wonder this government could not convince anyone in the Senate. These amendments did not just fall across the line by the way—they had everyone, because the Senate took a commonsense approach to this legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Keenan</p><p>I really need to respond to that, because, quite frankly, that was just 10 minutes of incoherent rambling from the shadow minister for transport, who really has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. The reason we opposed these amendments is that, obviously, we have advice from our agencies that this would restrict the scope of the application of what we are trying to achieve here—as the shadow minister for transport should know, but if he does not know it is quite remarkable. He is either wilfully ignorant of the argument that has been made here or he is just not concerned about the truth. I understand that the minister has tried to reason with him, has tried to explain the situation and has actually sat down with him and said that this is the reason the government wants to proceed in this way. The reason is very clear: it is because we have strong advice that 'serious and organised' crime has the potential to not capture the scope of individuals that we want to capture under this legislation. Within his contribution, the minister has actually provided examples of where that could happen.</p><p>By proceeding the way the government is proceeding—by using the definition of serious crime—we will make sure that we are not going to have the wrong people working at our ports and our airports. We cannot have a situation in Australia where we have criminals, who associate with other criminals, who may not have been convicted of crimes but on whom we have sufficient criminal intelligence to understand that they present a significant security risk for us—</p><p class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</p><p>This is the whole point. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have absolutely no understanding of what the government is trying to achieve here. I understand that the minister has been very patient in explaining what the government is trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve is to make sure that we have appropriate people working within sensitive areas at our ports and airports, and people with criminal backgrounds, people who are associating with criminals and people who are members of bikie gangs, for example, are not appropriate people to be working at our ports and airports.</p><p>This shadow minister has come up with some ridiculous argument to say that the government is not adhering to the advice we received. We have been given firm advice that we need to tighten up what is happening at our ports and airports and to tighten up on the people who are getting access to them through the MSIC and ASIC regimes and to make sure that people who have criminal associates and people that we understand are not the right people to be working there should be denied access to those secure areas. It is clear from the member for Grayndler's contribution that he really does not understand what the government is trying to achieve here. We engaged constructively with the opposition. We sat down with him and explained why his proposal will weaken what we are trying to achieve—</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>I have never sat down with you in my life.</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Keenan</p><p>The government has sat down with you. This minister has sat down with you.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>No he hasn't—</p> <p class="speaker">Michael Keenan</p><p>You just cannot reason with some people. This is the problem. We can explain to him why what he has proposed here would weaken what the government is trying to do. What he has proposed here would allow the wrong people to continue to work at our ports and airports. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport provided examples in his contribution. Quite frankly, if the Labor Party wants to see more criminals at our ports and our airports then we are very happy to continue to have that argument.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|