Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016

Bills Digest no. 28, 2016–17

PDF version [606KB]

Monica Biddington
Law and Bills Digest Section
19 October 2016

Contents

The ASIC and MSIC schemes
Table 1: Aviation security: relevant offence
Election commitment
Previous Parliamentary and independent reviews
National Ice Taskforce

Committee consideration

Senate Standing Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

Position of major interest groups

Financial implications

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

Key issues and provisions

Proposed ASIC and MSIC Eligibility Criteria

Concluding comments

Date introduced: 31 August 2016
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional Development
Commencement: The day after Royal Assent.

Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian Parliament website.

When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation website.

All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at October 2016.

History of the Bill

An earlier version of this Bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 (the earlier Bill), was introduced into the 44th Parliament on 11 February 2016.[1] That Bill passed in the House of Representatives on 16 March 2016 and then lapsed on prorogation of Parliament. The current Bill is identical to the earlier Bill, however, its commencement provision, second reading speech and the Explanatory Memorandum are different.

Purpose and Structure of the Bill

The purpose of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 (the Bill) is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (Cth)[2] (ATS Act) and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (Cth)[3] (MTOFS Act) to:

create an additional purpose in the ATS and MTOFS 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
strengthen the regulatory framework, with harmonised eligibility criteria for the Aviation Security Identification Card and Maritime Security Identification Card Schemes
clarify the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of ASIC and MSIC applicants and holders
allow for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences against new serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across both schemes and
insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to a court as to Parliament’s intention.

The Bill contains one Schedule, making amendments to the ATS Act and the MTOFS Act. Note, though, that the amendments substantively prescribe that the details be set by regulation and these regulations will be made at a later time. Regulations will be made under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2005.[4] While this aspect has been subject to some criticism, it is consistent with other operational matters relating to the issue of an ASIC or a MSIC.

Background

The ASIC and MSIC schemes

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.[5]

An ASIC is required to obtain unescorted access to the secure areas of security controlled airports that have regular public transport (RPT) services. An ASIC is valid for up to two years. Eligible workers include persons involved in the operation of an airport or aircraft, couriers or suppliers, baggage handlers, passenger screening officers, and security guards, regardless of whether they need to access the secure area of an airport.[6]

A MSIC is required if a person needs to work unescorted or unmonitored in a maritime security zone. The MSIC scheme covers waterfront workers, seafarers on Australian regulated ships, customs brokers and shipping agents, contractors, service providers and maintenance workers, truck drivers, train operators and anyone who works onboard an offshore oil or gas facility. An MSIC is valid for up to four years.[7]

The cards are issued by AusCheck, under the AusCheck Act 2007.[8] AusCheck is responsible for administering both the ASIC and the MSIC schemes, which includes coordinating a background check on the person applying for the card. For a card to be issued, the person also needs to demonstrate an operational need for an ASIC or MSIC. A background check will then include a security assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, a criminal history check by CrimTrac and an immigration check by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Presently, by way of example, applicants are required to fulfil the eligibility criteria set out in Division 6 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations, which prescribe that they have not been convicted of any of the following:

Table 1: Aviation security: relevant offence

Item	Kind of offence
1	An offence involving dishonesty
2	An offence involving violence or a threat of violence
3	An offence involving intentional damage to property or a threat of damage to property
4	An offence constituted by the production, possession, supply, import or export of a substance that is: (a) a narcotic substance within the meaning of the Customs Act 1901; or (b) a drug, within the meaning of: (i) regulation 10 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958; or (ii) regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956
5	An offence, of a kind dealt with in Part II of the Crimes Act 1914, against the Government of: (a) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or (b) a country or part of a country other than Australia
6	An offence against Part 2 of the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991
7	An offence against Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code
8	An offence constituted by the production, possession, supply, import or export of explosives or explosive devices

Source: Part 6, Division 6.1, 6.01, Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005.

The Government proposes in this Bill to allow regulations made under the ATS Act and the MTOFS Act to also prescribe additional criteria intended to prevent the use of aviation or maritime ports in connection with serious or organised crime. Proposed section 38AB of the ATS Act (at item 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill) prescribes that regulations may, for the purposes of preventing the use of aviation in connection with serious or organised crime, prescribe requirements in relation to specified areas and zones. Item 12 of Schedule 1 inserts proposed section 113F into the MTOFS Act to allow equivalent regulations to be made in relation to maritime transport or offshore facilities. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the new eligibility criteria will introduce new offence ‘tier’ categories such as offences arising from anti-gang or criminal organisation legislation; illegal importation of goods; interfering with goods under Australian Border Force control; and foreign incursion and recruitment.[9] On successful passage, it is intended that the reforms will become effective from 1 February 2017.[10]

Organised crime is a serious threat to Australia’s security and prosperity. The Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, stated:

It is known that organised criminal groups exploit weaknesses in the ASIC and MSIC schemes to their benefit. These changes will address this issue and are a critical step in securing our airport and seaports from criminal influence.[11]

The reforms in this Bill will not change the framework under which the eligibility criteria is considered or the process by which AusCheck conducts a background check. The same application, reporting, and appeal mechanisms will apply. Consequential amendments will also be made to the AusCheck Regulations 2007 which provide for the background checks to be conducted by the Attorney-General’s Department.[12]

The earlier Bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee (the Committee) on 25 February 2016. The Committee reported earlier than originally scheduled, tabling the report out of session on 22 April 2016. The Senate noted its receipt on 2 May 2016. The Committee’s report is discussed below.

Election commitment

The earlier Bill gave effect to the Government’s 2013 election commitment to ‘reduce potential risks associated with criminal influences at our air and sea ports.’[13] In June 2016, the Government included the measures in this Bill in its policy to ‘keep illegal guns off our streets and our communities safe’, committing to:

... strengthen background checking regimes to ensure that individuals with links to serious and organised crime cannot gain access [to] our airports, ports, and other Commonwealth sites where security is a concern.[14]

Previous Parliamentary and independent reviews

There have been a number of reports focused on the security of the aviation and maritime industries. Of particular note are three Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Reports on aviation security in Australia and the 2005 Wheeler Airport Security and Policing Review, which led to the establishment of AusCheck.[15]

The Australian National Audit Office Report, The Management of the Aviation Security Identification Card and Maritime Security Identification Card Scheme was completed in 2011.[16] The object of this audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport and the Attorney-General’s Department’s management of the ASIC and MSIC schemes.[17] The audit results focused on governance, reporting and process issues and did not identify the eligibility criteria for ASIC and MSIC as an area for review at the time.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement’s Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime was a lengthy inquiry beginning in 2009.[18] In its report tabled two years later, the Committee recommended that the Attorney-General’s Department, in consultation with the Australian Crime Commission (now the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission), reviews the list of relevant security offences under the ASIC and MSIC scheme to assess whether any further offences are required in order to effectively extend those scheme to protect the aviation and maritime sectors against the threat of infiltration by serious and organised criminal networks.[19] The Government agreed with this recommendation. The PJCLE also recommended that the scope of both Acts be widened to include combating serious and organised crime in addition to terrorist activity and unlawful interference.[20] The Government noted, and this Bill implements, that recommendation.[21]

National Ice Taskforce

The National Ice Taskforce was established on 8 April 2015 to advise the Government on the impacts of the drug ‘ice’ (crystal methamphetamine) in Australia and drive the development of a National Ice Action Strategy.[22] One of the Taskforce’s priorities was to disrupt supply of ice, in a more coordinated and targeted method. The National Ice Taskforce recommended in December 2015 that there be stronger law enforcement measures to tackle the trafficking of ice, including toughening background checks made on people seeking ASIC and MSIC.[23] Recommendation 24 states:

The Commonwealth Government should continue to protect the aviation and maritime environments against organised crime by strengthening the eligibility criteria for holders of Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards; and establishing a legal mechanism to enable compelling criminal intelligence to be used in determining suitability of workers to hold such a card.[24]

Committee consideration

The current Bill has not been referred to Committee. However, the earlier Bill was referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on 25 February 2016. The Committee reported on 22 April 2016.[25]

Senate Standing Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

The Senate Committee examined the provisions of the Bill and identified the following issues of concern that had been raised by stakeholders:

consultation on the development of the Bill;
the Bill could make Australian transport infrastructure less secure;
the Bill could adversely impact employment in the aviation and maritime sectors;
penalties for offences outlined by the Bill exceed the recommended penalties in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences; and
the Bill treats crews on Flag of Convenience shipping and Australian crews differently, thereby disadvantaging local workers.[26]

The majority report recommended that the Bill be passed. There was no recommendation for amendment or further consideration. However, the Greens provided a Dissenting Report, not supporting the Bill in its current form and Senators from the Australian Labor Party (ALP) provided additional comments, noting that they were considering amendments to the Bill.

On 4 December 2014, the same Committee was referred matters relating to airport and aviation security for inquiry.[27] That inquiry lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament on 9 May 2016. On 15 September 2016 the Senate re-referred the inquiry to the Committee, with a reporting date of 1 December 2016.[28] Details of the inquiry can be found at the Committee’s website.[29]

Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills

In its Alert Digest Number 6, tabled on 14 September 2016, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of the Bills considered the Bill, particularly whether the Bill’s authorisation of offences in the regulations with high penalty units attached was appropriate.[30] In response to Committee comments on the earlier version of the Bill, the Minister provided the following justification for this approach:

Proposed subsection 38AB(3) of the Bill, which amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (Aviation Act), provides for regulations to be made prescribing maximum penalties of 200 penalty units for airport and aircraft operators, and 100 penalty units for aviation industry participants other than airport or aircraft operators or accredited air cargo agents. Similarly, proposed subsection 113F(2), which amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (Maritime Act), provides for regulations to be made prescribing maximum penalties of 200 penalty units for operators of ports, ships, port facilities and offshore facilities, with 100 penalty units for other maritime industry participants.

The Guide [to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers][31] recommends that penalties exceeding 50 penalty units should not normally be imposed by regulations.

...

As explained in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, any new penalties to be prescribed in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 (Aviation Regulations) and Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (Maritime Regulations) for the purpose of the new serious or organised crime provisions, will be consistent with existing penalties prescribed for similar offences within the Aviation and Maritime Regulations. This will ensure uniform implementation and enforcement of similar offences, which reflects the Guide’s requirements that any penalties imposed should be consistent with penalties for existing offences of a similar kind, or of a similar seriousness.

I also note that the penalties specified in the Bill, and in the existing Aviation and Maritime Acts, take into the account body corporate multiplier rule identified in the Guide. This rule provides that penalties can be set five times higher for body corporates than for natural persons, which also applies to offences in subordinate legislation. The maximum penalty imposed in the Bill for natural persons (identified as ‘any other persons’ in the Bill) is 50 penalty units, which is consistent with the requirements under the Guide. However, in accordance with the Guide, higher maximum penalties are prescribed for industry roles undertaken by corporate entities. ‘Aviation industry participants’ and ‘maritime industry participants’ are corporate entities such as port operators or airlines.

Finally, by prescribing maximum penalties, the Bill provides for discretion to be applied in making regulations imposing any such penalties. The provisions of the Bill itself do not establish any offences or impose any penalties. (Fifth Report of 2016, pp 391–393).[32]

In light of the information provided by the Minister, the Committee left the question of whether the amendments are appropriate to the Senate as a whole and made no further comment on the Bill.[33]

Policy position of non-government parties/independents

In the Senate Committee report, Labor Senators Sterle and Gallacher made additional comments that were broadly supportive of targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. However, the Senators were concerned that adding an additional, secondary purpose to the Acts (preventing the use of aviation, maritime transport in connection with serious or organised crime) will ‘confuse the two missions of transport security and targeting serious or organised crime in the transport system’, concluding that ‘clarity of purpose is a really important issue from a mission perspective, and the main report does not address this issue adequately.’[34] The Senators indicated that Labor is considering amendments to this Bill.[35]

Further, in a Dissenting Report, the Australian Greens stated that the eligibility criteria changes ‘make very little sense’, noting that it is excessively punitive that someone convicted of drug possession will no longer have access to the identification pass required for most roles within the maritime sector.[36]

In broad terms however, the majority of the Senate Committee considered that the Bill has a positive security outcome, addressing the threat which serious and organised crime poses to Australian transport infrastructure.[37]

Position of major interest groups

While the Senate Committee concluded that consultation on the Bill was appropriate, some witness argued that the Bill was developed with insufficient consultation with relevant stakeholders. The Australian Maritime Officers Union and the Australian Services Union expressed concern about potential delays in the ASIC and MSIC application process and that the Bill does not go far enough to reach to the security threat posed by those who are responsible for the management of the ports.[38]

In response to the concern about potential delays, the Government believes that because ASIC or MSIC applications will be assessed against a single set of criteria, the need to complete separate background checks for each application is reduced.

The shift in focus from low level or minor offences to higher risk offences related to serious or organised crime means that more applicants are expected to be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development asserts that this will result in a quicker issue of an ASIC or MSIC, reducing the impact on the person’s employment and increasing the staff available to employers:

The proposed eligibility criteria is expected to provide positive employment outcomes overall across the ASIC and MSIC schemes.[39]

Financial implications

The Explanatory Memorandum notes that there will be no financial impact as a result of this Bill.[40]

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[41]

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considers that the Bill does not raise human rights concerns.[42]

Key issues and provisions

Schedule 1 of the Bill contains 13 items. The key items of interest for debate are item 4 and item 12.

Item 4 of the Bill will insert a new Division 4A – Serious or organised crime (consisting of proposed sections 38AA and 38AB) into Part 3 of the ATS Act and item 12 will insert a new Division 6 – Serious or organised crime (consisting of proposed sections 113E and 113F) into Part 6 of the MTOFS Act. Proposed section 38AB of the ATS Act and proposed section 113F of the MTOFS Act provide the authority for amendments to the corresponding regulations for the purpose of combating serious or organised crime in connection with aviation transport, maritime transport and offshore facilities.

Items 4 and 12 further provide for the prescription of penalties against the new serious or organised crime amendments. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that, by setting out the maximum penalties that may be prescribed in the regulations, proposed subsection 38AB(3) of the ATS Act and proposed subsection 113F(2) of the MTOFS Act provide for discretion to be applied in making regulations imposing penalties.[43]

All Commonwealth legislation must be supported by a Constitutional head of power. Like most legislation, the ATS Act and the MTOFS Act rely on more than one head of Constitutional power (including the corporations and external affairs powers). Section 132 of the ATS Act and section 208 of the MTOFS Act are ‘severability’ provisions that set out the alternative constitutional bases for the Acts’ provisions. These provisions operate so that if the High Court determined that the Acts were not properly founded on a particular power, then the Acts would still stand to the extent that another head or heads of power provides a valid Constitutional basis. Items 5 and 13 amend section 132 of the ATS Act and section 208 of the MTOFS Act respectively to insert two new severability provisions to clarify the Commonwealth’s legislative power in relation to serious or organised crime and the use of the ASIC and MSIC schemes as a measure to combat it within the sectors. The new provisions reference the incidental power at paragraph 51(xxxix) of the Constitution.

Proposed ASIC and MSIC Eligibility Criteria

The proposed amendments will allow the regulations to ‘tier’ offences for the first time. For example, less serious offences will require a higher imprisonment threshold to become an aviation or maritime-security-relevant offence, while more serious offences will only require conviction.[44]

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has prepared a visual diagram of the proposed ASIC and MSIC Eligibility Criteria subject to Parliamentary approval.[45]

Tier 1 contains a list of disqualifying offences. Persons captured under Tier 1 of the eligibility criteria will be disqualified from being issued an ASIC/MSIC and will not have access to the discretionary assessment by the Attorney-General's Department (AGD). They will continue to have access to appeal the decision through application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Tier 1 offences include those involving or relating to:

Terrorism; treason, sedition, espionage or selling national secrets; engagement in hostile activities in a foreign country or involvement with foreign armed forces; an offence relating to weapons of mass destruction; hijacking or destroying an aircraft, vessel or offshore facility that is used in commerce or owned by the government; endangerment of an aircraft, airport, vessel, port or offshore facility that is used in commerce or owned by the government; acts of piracy at sea; an offence relating to involvement with a criminal organisation or gang; and smuggling or trafficking of people.

Tiers 2–5 contain offences that would result in a person being found to have an adverse criminal record and unable to be issued an ASIC/MSIC following the initial application. These persons will be eligible to apply for an ASIC/MSIC through the discretionary assessment.[46]

Tier 2 offences for which conviction is adverse include those involving or relating to:

Assaulting or threatening a person on an aircraft, vessel or offshore facility, or in an airport or port; theft of an aircraft or vessel that is used in commerce or owned by the government; questioning conducted by a person or body investigating serious and organised crime or corruption; and an offence under the ATS Act or MTOFS Act that is punishable by imprisonment.

A benefit of the tiered approach is that a larger number of applicants will be initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC. This is due to the shift in focus from low level or minor offences to higher risk offences related to serious or organised crime.[47]

The proposed ASIC/MSIC eligibility criteria is also outlined on the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development’s website to assist current ASIC or MSIC cardholders and new applicant to understand the new scheme.[48]

Tier 3 offences for which a sentence of imprisonment is adverse include those involving or relating to:

Murder or manslaughter, or an offence of a kind equivalent to murder or manslaughter; firearms, ammunition, weapons or the use of an item as a weapon; explosives or explosive devices; production, possession, supply, import or export of an illegal drug or controlled substance; illegal import or export of goods, fauna or flora; bribery or corruption; perjury or other involving perversion of the course of justice; an offence involving the use of a false identity or false identity documents; interference with goods under customs control; and use or access of data or electronic communications.

Tier 4 offences for which a sentence of 12 months imprisonment is adverse include those involving or relating to:

False imprisonment, deprivation of liberty or taking a hostage; racial hatred or racial vilification; assaulting or resisting a law enforcement officer or other public officer; impersonating a law enforcement officer or other public officer; extortion or blackmail; dealing with proceeds of crime; money laundering or currency violations; and arson or an offence of a kind equivalent to arson.

Tier 5 offences for which a sentence of 30 months imprisonment is adverse includes those involving or relating to:

Theft (other than offences referred to in other tiers); forgery or fraud; sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child; assault (other than offences referred to in other tiers) including indecent or sexual assault; intimidation (other than offences referred to in other tiers); endangerment of others (other than offences referred to in other tiers); affray or riot; and tax evasion.

Concluding comments

While the Bill implements recommendations from the National Ice Taskforce and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, further scrutiny on the precise form of the eligibility criteria should be undertaken once the Regulations are presented. There may be some parliamentary debate around the practicalities of the proposed changes and whether widening the ‘purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the two missions of transport security and targeting serious or organised crime in the transport system’.[49] Other issues for debate may be around the balance between potential employment restrictions and the risk of serious or organised crime at Australia’s air and maritime ports. The very nature of serious and organised crime is such that drug convictions may be indicative of a vulnerability that may result in conduct that threatens the security of Australia’s ports.

[1]. Parliament of Australia, ‘Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.

[2]. Aviation Transport Security Act 2004.

[3]. Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003.

[4]. Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and Maritime Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2005.

[5]. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (DIRD), ‘Aviation security identification’, DIRD website, last updated 16 December 2015; and DIRD, ‘Applying for a Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC)’, DIRD website, last updated 1 July 2016.

[6]. Ibid.

[7]. Ibid.

[8]. AusCheck Act 2007.

[9]. Explanatory Memorandum, Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, p. 3.

[10]. D Chester (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) and M Keenan (Minister for Justice), Securing airports and seaports against serious or organised crime, media release, 31 August 2016.

[11]. Ibid.

[12]. AusCheck Regulations 2007; Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation, Inquiry into the Transport Security amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, March 2016, p. 3.

[13]. K McNamara, ‘Second reading speech: Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016’, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 March 2016, p. 3266. See also, Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia, The Coalition’s policy to tackle crime, Coalition policy document, Election 2013.

[14]. Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia, The Coalition’s policy to keep illegal guns off our streets and our communities safe, Coalition policy document, Election 2016.

[15]. For report details from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts (JCPA), see Reports under the 40th and 41st Parliament, noting JCPA, Review of aviation security in Australia, Report, 400, JCPA, Canberra, June 2004; JCPA, Developments in aviation security since the Committee's June 2004 Report 400: review of aviation security in Australia: an interim report, Interim report, 406, JCPA, Canberra, November 2005; Joint Committee Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), Developments in aviation security since the Committee’s June 2004 report 400: review of aviation security in Australia, Report, 409, JCPAA, Canberra, December 2006; and J Wheeler, An independent review of airport security and policing for the government of Australia, Airport Security and Policing Review, Canberra, September 2005.

[16]. Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Management of the Aviation and Maritime Security Identification Card Schemes, Audit report, 39, 2010–11, ANAO, Canberra, May 2011.

[17]. Ibid., p. 14.

[18]. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime, Report, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, June 2011.

[19]. Ibid., p. 93.

[20]. Ibid., p. 24.

[21]. Australian Government, Government response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement: Inquiry into the Adequacy of Aviation and Maritime Security Measures to Combat Serious and Organised Crime, September 2011.

[22]. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), ‘The National Ice Taskforce’, PM&C website.

[23]. PM&C, Final Report of the National Ice Taskforce, PM&C, Canberra, 6 October 2015.

[24]. Ibid. p. 140.

[25]. Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation, Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, April 2016.

[26]. Ibid., p. 5.

[27]. N Xenophon, ‘Committees: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’, Senate, Debates, 4 December 2014, p. 10205.

[28]. Australia, Senate, Journals, 7, 2016–17, (proof), 15 September 2016, p. 225.

[29]. Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References, ‘Airport and aviation security’, Inquiry homepage.

[30]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert digest, 6, 2016, The Senate, 14 September 2016, p. 38.

[31]. Attorney-General’s Department, A guide to framing Commonwealth offences, infringement notices and enforcement powers, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, September 2011.

[32]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert digest, 6, 2016, op. cit., pp. 39–40.

[33]. Ibid., p. 40.

[34]. Australian Labor Party, Additional comments, Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation, Inquiry into Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, The Senate, Canberra, April 2016, p. 15.

[35]. Ibid.

[36]. Australian Greens, Dissenting report, Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation, Inquiry into the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, The Senate, Canberra, April 2016, p. 17.

[37]. Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation, Inquiry into Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, April 2016, p.12.

[38]. This is discussed in the Committee’s report at pages 7–10, ibid.

[39]. Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation, Inquiry into the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, March 2016, p. 4.

[40]. Explanatory Memorandum, Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, p. 3.

[41]. The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.

[42]. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), Thirty-fourth Report of the 44th Parliament, 23 February 2016, p. 2; PJCHR, Report, 7, 2016, The Senate, 11 October 2016, p. 100.

[43]. Explanatory Memorandum, Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, op. cit., pp. 6–7.

[44]. Also note that from the date of commencement the discretionary assessment process will be managed by the Attorney-General's Department. This is a functional move only and will have no impact on applicants or the discretionary assessment process.

[45]. DIRD, ‘ASIC and MSIC eligibility criteria’, DIRD website.

[46]. DIRD, ‘Proposed new eligibility criteria for the ASIC and MSIC schemes’, DIRD website, last updated 29 September 2016.

[47]. Ibid.

[48]. Ibid.

[49]. Australian Labor Party, Additional comments, Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation, Inquiry into the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016, op. cit.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.