Bills Digest no. 28,
2016–17
PDF version [606KB]
Monica Biddington
Law and Bills Digest Section
19
October 2016
Contents
History of the Bill
Purpose and Structure of the Bill
Background
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.
© Commonwealth of Australia
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.