Locke Keith: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Locke Keith: Maritime Security Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12205] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is of course supporting this bill. We are for appropriate maritime security although it is important as we consider the bill and some of its consequences which are not necessarily in the bill but supplied through regulation or by the agencies that previous speakers have referred to that we do not go overboard in adopting a higher level of security measures than is warranted in particular situations at particular ports and on particular boats. There is a bit of danger of that in the current climate where people are super-sensitive to the dangers of terrorism and sometimes adopt measures that are excessive for the particular circumstance. 
Part 1 refers to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and our relationship through the International Maritime Organization etc. in applying those measures and putting them in this bill. It is true that a lot of the practical detail and implementation that will follow is being dictated by the United States. It is the one country that plays hard ball and says that if we want our ships to go into its ports we have to abide by those particular provisions in terms of our wharf and boat security. So we can be stampeded into doing things a bit too much. 
In terms of going overboard on the definitions in clause 5 I have an amendment on behalf of the Green Party to the definition of “suspicious act”. The term “suspicious act” was referred to by a previous speaker and the present definition states “suspicious act does not include the lawful exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” My amendment is to omit the word “lawful” from the definition of “suspicious act”. 
The reason for that and it is something that is promoted by the two main unions concerned on this issue—the Maritime Union and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union—is that they are concerned that if they go on strike and for one reason or another somebody considers it illegal then they will be put in the category of “suspicious act” for going on strike and treated as terrorists or whatever it might be in the particular situation. I do not think the motivation behind the bill is to put the average group of wharfies or seafarers in that definition just for engaging in industrial action over a safety issue or whatever it might be. 
We know that often there has been a tumultuous series of relations between employer and worker on the waterfront. Sometimes one side is wrong and sometimes the other side is but it is true that often there is a lot of dispute about what is a legal strike and what is not. I do not think the bill should get into that determination by just removing the word “lawful” so in my view the particular clause would read “suspicious act does not include the exercise of any right to demonstrate protest or strike.” That would be more appropriate and I hope that members will support that amendment. 
Employers and unionists are concerned how that will be applied in particular situations on ships and waterfronts. Part 1 has security levels 1 2 and 3. Security level 3 is the highest one and means the level for which further specific protective security measures must be maintained for a limited period of time when a security incident is probable or imminent. If we get too carried away and apply that security level 3 just because there is a bomb scare or someone phones up or whatever then one of the problems could be that it becomes a hoaxer’s paradise. As it would seem to be applied—and some ship owners are worried about this—if a whole port is closed down for a prolonged period then it could stop different ships sailing and slow up unloading etc. If we go overboard with security measures that would encourage hoaxers.