Outcry over lax Bill

Howard Government Adopts Fly By Night Port Security

Shipping and port bodies have joined the Maritime Union in bagging the flawed Maritime Transport Security Bill being drawn up by the Howard Government as an unworkable policy based on the airline industry.

In August Lloyds List Daily Commercial News ran three reports citing industry concern over the draft Maritime Transport Security Bill while calling for urgent meetings across the maritime industry.

"Industry Bodies Call for Crisis Talks on New Security Bill" ran the headline on August 22 followed by "Battle over Bill" the following week and "Industry and States Sound Alarm on Draft Security Bill" on August 31. The stories cited leading figures from the maritime industries and states expressing worries about the wording, timing and cost of the Maritime Security Transport Bill 2003 being circulated in draft form at senior levels of industry and government.

One report said maritime industry bodies had drawn up more workable plans themselves.

The MUA is one such body. The union commissioned a report from academic Duncan McDonald to help with a submission to government. It notes that the union has not been consulted or included in security issues.

"We have expressed our extreme disappointment about the lack of consultation," said National Secretary Paddy Crumlin. "We were only given seven days to prepare our submission and they are going to try to punch the legislation through the Spring sitting of Parliament."

The MUA has picked up on the failure of the bill to include a co-operative approach towards detection of terrorist threats. This is despite European and US governments including both the ITF and local unions in deliberations of their security laws.

In New Zealand consultative committees have been in place for three months in the lead up to the drafting of their bill with full involvement of the Maritime Union in both shipping and stevedoring deliberations.

It is also despite stevedoring workers playing a key role in uncovering terrorist threats in recent times.

It was Italian port workers who uncovered a stowaway in a container in the port of Bioia Tauro on the Barbuda flag of convenience vessel Ipex Emperor last October. The suspected terrorist was equipped with a cell phone, satellite phone, lap top computer, airport security passes, airline mechanic's certificate valid for US airports.

"Our members are central to Australia's future security," said MUA National Secretary Paddy Crumlin. "And it's about time the Department of Transport wakes up to the fact. How are our stevedoring workers protected? What about ID issues? What about casuals, body hire labour and contractors? It looks like our ports are going to have to be locked up tighter than prisons."

The union also notes a lack of a clarity over enforcement provisions of the bill and the exclusion of ILO freedom of association requirements which ensure the fundamental rights and freedoms of maritime and port workers.

"The bill also completely fails to recognise that foreign shipping poses a much greater security risk than Australian shipping and that the use of the permit system greatly heightens the risk to Australian ports," said Crumlin.

Ship inspections are the sole responsibility of the Department of Transport and Regional Services. But the Federal Government has only allocated $14 million to maritime security compared to the US, which has put up US$5.26 billion.

Maritime security has become mandatory since the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) held a diplomatic conference in 2002 to develop the International Shipping & Port Security Code in response to the rising terrorist attacks worldwide and in recognition that ports and ships are at extreme risk.

The Code aims to establish an international framework and government cooperation to detect security threats. After July 2004 non-certified ports will not be permitted to accept ships trading internationally and non-certified ships will not be able to trade internationally.

"Yet the Howard Government has adopted a minimalist approach on this important issue, refusing to even enter into the process of developing a new seafarers identity document," said Crumlin.

The national secretary represented Australian seafarers at the ILO alongside shipowners representatives. In the two-year deliberations no government representative was sighted at any meeting and Australia is one of only seven countries that did not endorse the new convention.

"This is down to Tony Abbott's refusal to recognise the ILO," said Crumlin.

Meanwhile Shipping Australia chief executive Llew Russell has backed the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities John Hirst in damning the draft bill and calling for further consultation and redrafting before it goes to parliament.

Lloyds List/DCN reports the general consensus is that the bill is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a generic aviation model inappropriate to the maritime industry. Industry players have described the government's attitude as a 'blinkered' choice, criticising the Department of Transport for its lack of maritime expertise.

Russell told Lloyds the government had written its own maritime security laws rather than adopting the IMO code. It fails to meet international maritime regulations, which most ships calling here will use.

To date the Transport Department is unapologetic, with speculation that it will be left to the Senate to set the bill right.

"That's why we will be lobbying the federal opposition and minority parties and exposing the hypocrisy of a overnment that incites fear and paranoia on security issues for cynical political purposes, but is bare arsed when it comes to delivering any policies protecting our ports and harbours from terrorist attack," said Crumlin.

The bill was introduced to parliament on September 18, with the MUA among other industry players voicing their opinion on ABC's 7.30 Report and Background Briefing.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s957053.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s937554.htm