Mr McCLELLAND (Barton) (11.59 a.m.)—In the interests of time and to allow colleagues on both sides of the chamber to make a contribution, I thought it would be best to flag a number of issues and then perhaps to invite the Attorney-General to respond to these. The first relates to his capacity as the minister ultimately responsible for Customs and the Australian Federal Police. Of the maritime security initiatives that are being dealt with in the Senate today, we still have an issue that unnecessary fragmentation remains in the government agencies responsible for border protection. There are certainly eight government agencies with a substantial responsibility and there are 11 primary pieces of legislation that we are aware of that are vital to effective border protection. Our question on that issue essentially is whether the government has any plans to greater coordinate—and we note the establishment of the Joint Offshore Protection Command—those agencies and perhaps rationalise some of the work they perform and whether the government will conduct a review of the relevant pieces of legislation to ensure that the powers exercised by officers of the Commonwealth under each of those respective pieces of legislation are consistent.

In that context we note, for instance, that the rules of engagement, as we understand them, that apply to the military when they are pursing a fleeing vessel—an illegal fishing vessel, for instance—are such that the military are not permitted, other than in exceptional circumstances, I gather, to fire into the propulsion mechanism of that vessel. For understandable reasons, those rules of engagement are not publicly disclosed. On the other hand, the clear powers given to not only the Australian Customs Service but also the Royal Australian Navy under, for instance, the Fisheries Management Act legislation—and immigration legislation as well, as I recall—specifically include the power to fire into the propulsion mechanism of a fleeing vessel. There does seem to be a need to standardise those rules of engagement, particularly in the context of the welcome step of Customs vessels being fitted with at least a small arms capacity on their decks. So that is a question as to whether those rules of engagement will be standardised.

My next question is on the resourcing of our border protection regime. This is a politically charged issue, but there does seem to be a need to undertake an analysis of our capability. Experts say that we have currently got 15 Fremantle class patrol vessels and eight Customs vessels and that, if you draw an equivalency given the distance that they cover, their operation is roughly equivalent to 50 police cars patrolling the whole of Australia. Granted, you are not going to have the intensity of population in our maritime zone, but increasingly we have got extremely valuable assets, if not traffic, in those zones and some rationale has to be made as to whether the government plans to review this in the long term. We understand that, for instance, the cost of operating a Fremantle class patrol boat—and it is probably similar to that for an Armidale class patrol boat—is in the order of $69,000 a day while operating a Customs vessel is in the order of $19,000 a day.

From the point of view of public policy, we have to end up making a decision as to what capabilities we expect from these naval vessels, whether the investment in that equipment is necessary and whether we are going to get more value for our money—and hence a greater spread of vessels on the water—if we look at what is being required from those vessels and perhaps, from a future planning point of view, having more of an emphasis on Customs type vessels as opposed to having more of an emphasis on the capacities of the heavily armed patrol vessels with their crews trained in warfare. We factor in of course the training elements in asking that question, but that does seem to be a rationale issue.

The other issue is foreign seafarers. Does the government intend to take steps to increase the face-to-face interviews of foreign seafarers? We are doing a lot of work with maritime security identification cards but, as we understand it, no such similar scheme applies or is intended to apply to foreign crew. There is still an unsatisfactory level of face-to-face Customs checking of these foreign crew. We understand there are in the order of 120,000 a year. Does the government intend to increase face-to-face scrutiny? (Extension of time granted) Does the government intend to look at a security regime that may apply to foreign seafarers?

There are a number of issues on port security. Does the government intend to equip either our Navy or Customs vessels with the power to authorise legislative interdiction where vessels fail to report their cargo, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s announced reporting zone establishment, 48 hours away from our ports? Related to that, is the government reviewing the extent of port security currently available? For instance, I know that New South Wales and Victoria are heading in that direction, providing greater equipment to state police forces, but it seems to me that the powers of apprehension or detention that a state police force may be able to exercise for the purpose of state law enforcement activities is nowhere near adequate if it comes to supervising international trade and, in particular, stopping a suspect vessel off our shores for the purpose of inspecting that vessel using the additional legislative powers that we have under the Commonwealth for supervising and managing international trade. Is work being undertaken to look at what respective state governments are doing and their capabilities in port security? Is anything being contemplated federally to supplement those?

On the issue of security identification cards for both the aviation industry and the maritime industry, it would seem to us that the reliability of that identification scheme will depend on the accuracy of the primary documentation. Does the government intend to further progress the document verification system? There were reports that perhaps $300 million had been suggested to cabinet and an ultimate budgetary figure of $6 million. Obviously, that will not be disclosed today by the Attorney, but the question remains: is this work in progress and will additional resources be provided for that document verification scheme?

There are a number of other issues—more recently on the controversy of aviation security. The Customs report that was leaked to the Australian was reported widely and was the subject of debate in the parliament. It seems to us to be inexcusable that that report was not distributed more widely, certainly to either the Australian Federal Police or the respective ministers—the Attorney-General as well as the Minister for Justice and Customs. It was not even provided to the Office of Transport Security. We know that an investigator is being appointed to look at airport security, but will the government be taking a greater role in coordinating what is happening and the communications between our agencies in these vital security areas?

I note that the Attorney-General has made comments in speeches and I understand meetings are taking place on revamping and strengthening public transport security. Are initiatives being taken there? Are any short-term initiatives being taken? Obviously public train transportation in capital cities is an issue which we believe cries out for control. There is no reason, for instance, that a cooperative arrangement could not be struck between the Commonwealth and the police, at least in the short term, to provide explosive detector dog capabilities so that they could patrol platforms and trains with a view to using their ability to detect scents in briefcases, backpacks and so forth that could be carried on trains. It would not seem an undue expense, from talking to experts involved, and not an unnecessarily or unreasonably burdensome task, to train dogs to patrol platforms and trains. Are any of these measures being contemplated, at least in the short term, pending the introduction of more sophisticated technology?