The following is an edited (slightly reduced) version of Question Time in Parliament after 27 March 2006 concerning the Jian Seng – the abandoned, unmanned tanker found drifting in the Gulf of Carpentaria.  

 

COA COMMENT: Though the subject is interesting, perhaps the most interesting aspect of this article is the questions asked by the opposition’s members and the answers given by Government representatives. Clearly the issue at hand was the presence of the vessel and the possible adverse implications for the country. Yet the answers by the Minister and other Government representatives are less to do with that matter and more to do with criticism of the Labor government when it was in power.

 

The exchanges between our political representatives give concern about the efficacy of Parliamentary Question Time and the real level of Ministerial accountability. If Question Time does not oblige Ministers to honestly and completely answer questions then the matter of Ministerial accountability is perverted and our democratic system of government is corrupted.

 

See below how the questions and answers are progressively dealt with over a few days and how there is a lack of concern by the Government about the lack of border resources and the holes in our border protection arrangements. As the Government members seek to rationalise the problems of border resources their comments become more bizarre, irrelevant and unrealistic.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 27/03/2006
The Jian Seng

Question
Senator LUDWIG - OPPOSITION (3.14 p.m.)—My question is to Senator Ellison, Minister for Justice and Customs. How does the minister explain the sudden appearance near our northern shores of the 80-metre ghost ship Jian Seng? How is it that an unmanned tanker, drifting aimlessly, can penetrate the Howard government’s weak border protection system totally unchallenged? Why did the Howard government take almost a full day to intercept the ghost ship? Can the minister confirm whether this was part of the support fleet for the flotilla of illegal fishing vessels that are plundering our fish stocks? How did this unmanned tanker manage to outsmart the Howard government in the zone targeted for illegal fishing? COMMENT: Relevant questions with political overtones

Answer
Senator ELLISON— GOVERNMENT Firstly, I can say that Coastwatch sighted this vessel on 8 March with a group of other vessels 100 nautical miles north of the north-west cape of Cape Wessel. This vessel came to the attention of Coastwatch and a flight was dispatched. It was located and the Storm Bay was despatched to intercept this vessel, which was drifting at that stage, although it was not known whether or not the vessel was abandoned. The Storm Bay, as I understand it, arrived during darkness alongside the vessel mentioned and, due to the fact that it was night-time and having regard to the safety of the officers on board, a decision was made to stay alongside but not board the vessel and to do so at first light in the morning, when it would be safe to do so. That was not a delay which was in any way inappropriate. It was entirely appropriate in the circumstances to delay any boarding until the daylight hours, and that was done. The vessel was ascertained to be abandoned. It was thought to have been under tow but to have broken its tow, and it was consequently drifting. –COMMENT – Good relevant answer –relevant to the question – issues not fully addressed – but relevant.

What this does demonstrate is that we have in place aerial and maritime surveillance to intercept a vessel in these circumstances, and that was done. In fact, looking at what we have done for Customs since this government came to power, we have increased by just under 90 per cent the funding under the previous Labor government. Investigations are continuing in relation to this matter, which will now be conducted by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. They will take responsibility for recovering the vessel. This demonstrates yet again that we have adequate measures in place for border protection in this country. COMMENT: Politicised Response - Not relevant to the question –questions not properly answered

If Senator Ludwig is advocating some sort of coastguard, he might want to tell us which version he wants, because there have been five proposed over the years by the opposition. Which one is he proposing? In fact, defence experts have criticised such a notion as being a duplication of assets and the establishment of a further bureaucracy. That is the problem with a coastguard. It would be cannibalising our Navy and our Customs maritime fleet and imposing a further bureaucracy, which would be costly and inefficient. In this case, we will continue to monitor the situation. We have air surveillance, maritime surveillance and unprecedented measures to our north looking after Australia ’s borders, which the previous Labor government never had. COMMENT – Politicised Response not relevant to the question–questions not properly answered

Question
Senator LUDWIG—OPPOSITION Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How many days was the vessel in Australian waters before it was intercepted, and when will the minister admit that under the Howard government our border security has become the laughing stock of South-East Asia ? If there are now some 13,000 illegal vessel sightings in our waters, when will the minister act to stop the plunder of our seas? When will the Howard government really get serious about border protection by building a dedicated national coastguard? COMMENT: Politicised question –but relevant information sought.

Answer
Senator ELLISON— GOVERNMENT I was in Singapore and the Philippines last week, and I can tell Senator Ludwig that there is great respect for border protection in this country—so much so that they want us to help them. They are asking us to help them set up border control measures in the region. We are doing it in Indonesia , Malaysia and the Philippines . We are helping the Singaporeans. This country is held in high regard for border protection and security. Senator Ludwig, when he takes his trip in a short while, ought to listen, and listen carefully, to what these countries say, because they will be praising the efforts of this country. They are asking us to help them because they have such a high regard for our border control. COMMENT: Partially relevant – but does not really address the question in a forthright manner

***
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 28/03/2006
The Jian Seng

Question
Senator LUDWIG OPPOSITION (2.24 p.m.)—My question is to Senator Ellison, Minister for Justice and Customs, and concerns answers he gave to the Senate yesterday. In reference to the ghost ship Jian Seng, the 80-metre unmanned tanker found drifting well inside Australia ’s borders, does the minister stand by his claim yesterday where he said:

What this does demonstrate is that we have in place aerial and maritime surveillance to intercept a vessel in these circumstances, and that was done.

How did a massive 80-metre steel hulled tanker manage to evade this brilliant surveillance network? Why did it take the Howard government two weeks to intercept the vessel after it entered Australian waters? And, since the Howard government’s border security is so porous, what actions has the minister undertaken to fix these problems? COMMENT: relevant and concerned questions – matters of considerable public and political interest

Answer
Senator ELLISON— GOVERNMENT As I said on the record yesterday—and that was not in question time but in answer to questions put to me—when the vessel was first sighted on 8 March it was not doing anything illegal. At that stage there was no reason— (interjections)

Senator ELLISON— GOVERNMENT --unless the opposition thinks that we should interdict vessels that are not doing anything illegal and that we should interdict and board unlawfully vessels for no reason at all. Maybe that is the way the opposition would do business. I can tell you that Australia abides by its international obligations and the law of this country and the law of the sea. When that vessel was first ascertained, on 8 March, it was not observed to be doing anything unlawful. To say that it has been drifting for the next 17 days is a leap of speculation on the part of the opposition. Quite frankly, this vessel was sighted at that stage and subsequently, some 17 days later, it was reported as drifting. It was not stated as having drifted for the whole of the 17 days— COMMENT: but the vessel was clearly questionable and suspicious – yet was it insufficient resources or some other reason that stopped the vessel being investigated during that 17 days – Question not answered.

Continue
Senator ELLISON— GOVERNMENT For Senator Ludwig to make that assertion is completely without foundation. When there was a report we sent a helicopter out to have a look at the vessel concerned. It did so. We then despatched the Storm Bay , which, as I described yesterday, came alongside the vessel during the hours of darkness and waited for daylight hours before boarding it. We notified AMSA of the vessel, and AMSA took over the operation. And we alerted vessels in the area in relation to any possible hazard in relation to the vessel. That was standard procedure. It was an interdiction which took place by our assets once that information had been received. COMMENT – fair partial answer – but does not get to the issue of tracking vessels in Australian waters and the resources available (but also not completely accurate or openly frank).  

Question
Senator LUDWIG—OPPOSTION Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not the case that it was not Customs but a passing Australian barge that in fact spotted the vessel in Australian waters? How can the minister claim to be taken seriously when a drifting unmanned vessel has made a complete goose of his claim to have strong border security? If you cannot spot an 80-metre ship, what is the chance of tackling small fishing vessels that are ripping out our fish stocks? COMMENT: now this raises questions about honesty and integrity of the Minister. By omission, the Minister implied that Customs found the drifting vessel but that was not fact and the Minister did not fully advise the public of the facts of the matter.

Answer
Senator ELLISON— GOVERNMENT Senator Ludwig does not quite appreciate how our system works in relation to the cooperation of other vessels that make sightings and report them to us. But I suppose Senator Ludwig believes that we should not rely on private vessels for sighting. He thinks that fishermen have no role. He thinks that commercial vessels have absolutely no role in looking out for Australia . I can say to Senator Ludwig that I have met with commercial fishermen who believe they do have a role. And we are working with them. We will rely on reports to our hotline and go out and inspect vessels which have been reported to us. We will do that when that is reported to Customs. If we did not do that, Senator Ludwig would be the first to say that we were derelict in our duty. In this case, we dispatched a helicopter immediately and the Storm Bay came alongside hours later. That demonstrates that we have a very good system in place; that vessel has been interdicted and towed into Weipa. COMMENT: No acknowledgement of the facts – an attack on what Ludwig is supposed to believe and think and misses the point that at some stage the vessel became unmanned and Customs did not have the resources or means to detect an 80 mtr Vessel abandoned in Australian woaters.-

***
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 28/03/2006
The Jian Seng
Speech

Senator O’BRIEN ( Tasmania ) OPPOSITION (3.03 p.m.)—I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Justice and Customs (Senator Ellison) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludwig today relating to border protection and the unmanned tanker Jian Seng.

The answer from the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, was another miserable explanation for the appalling performance of his agency in relation to the ghost ship Jian Seng. I am indebted to Senator Ludwig because he really belled the cat on the incompetence of this minister and his agency in relation to border protection and, just as importantly, in relation to the protection of seafarers and fishermen who were in the area at the time where a vessel was uncontrolled and unlit—a navigation hazard at the very least—for about 17 days in Australian waters. COMMENT: not finding a vessel adrift cannot be attributed to agency incompetence – unless proved – more likely it has to do with agency resources (and agency resources is a Ministerial issue) .

It has become clear that this vessel had been drifting aimlessly in the Gulf of Carpentaria for about 17 days. It was first known about by Coastwatch, apparently, and perhaps even earlier by the barge, on 8 March. The ship breached Australia ’s porous borders sometime prior to that date. Its activities before that date are apparently not known, although the government concedes now that it was probably used as part of organised illegal fishing operations predating on the limited fishing stocks in Australian waters. It met no resistance from Australian authorities until 25 March. It certainly was a marine hazard. It was apparently unmanned, though we are not certain about that—we know that when it was boarded, it was unmanned—it was certainly unlit and it was drifting aimlessly in the Gulf of Carpentaria . There are other vessels which sail in those waters—there are prawn trawlers, which work at night—and this vessel was unlit and a hazard to navigation.

Para cut -

This is a vessel which the government now concedes was probably engaged in the dirty business of illegal fishing in Australian waters. Addressing that activity is obviously a low priority to this government. It is an activity the Howard government cannot or will not stamp out. As a result, Australian fishing stocks are being pillaged at unsustainable levels. For reasons unknown, the government took no action to arrest this vessel until it had been floating around in the gulf for 17 days. To use the language that the Prime Minister’s seal of approval has been given to, where the bloody hell was the government?

The attempt by the Minister for Justice and Customs to justify the government’s incompetence in this matter is absolutely breathtaking. He has now stonewalled Labor’s questions for two days. But the government cannot run away from its responsibility to explain its behaviour. It has some serious questions to answer: where did the vessel come from, what was it doing in Australian waters, who made the decision to let it drift free for 17 days, when was the Australian Maritime Safety Authority alerted to its existence, when were other seafarers warned of the hazard it posed, can the government explain how it plans to deal with the ship now and will it accept full responsibility for this fiasco or is it expecting the state of Queensland to take possession of the vessel and clean up the mess? COMMENT: a bunch of good questions that should be answered publicly by the Minister.

I am not surprised that the port of Weipa does not want the vessel there because, given the performance of this federal government, it is likely it would wash its hands of responsibility and say to the state government, ‘You’ve got it now; you deal with it.’ I am not surprised that the port of Weipa does not want the vessel in its harbour. I believe this government has a responsibility. It has failed to date. It has to pick up the challenge, deal with this vessel and get it out of Australian waters. As regards this ghost ship, what about Warren Truss? (Time expired)

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
The Jian Seng
Speech

Senator JOHNSTON ( Western Australia ) GOVERNMENT (3.08 p.m.)—These are matters of great moment before the Australian parliament as brought to us by the opposition. Here is an abandoned vessel floating quite harmlessly off the vast coast of northern Australia . For those of you who do not know, there are no shipping lanes in this area. It has been used by fishermen, but there are no shipping lanes. It is floating off the vast coast of Australia . A Customs Coastwatch helicopter reported the vessel at a very early point, around 8 March, as being derelict and with no apparent sign of life. COMMENT: this appears to be incorrect. The vessel was reported by Coastwatch but not abandoned and adrift. BUT more importantly – if Coastwatch had identified an abandoned 80 mtr vessel in Australian waters – what was done at the time – and if nothing was done – then why not?

The opposition fails to understand that, in the practical operation of Coastwatch and the management of vessels in apprehending illegal fishermen, when you divert vessels to apprehend a vessel that is unmanned and floating harmlessly and aimlessly, you obviously leave a gap in the surveillance area. People who understand what happens on Australian patrol boats know that a patrol boat is deployed to apprehend illegal fishermen and then to deal with their boats. Whilst one goes and deals with a fishing vessel that is unmanned and floating, as I say, quite harmlessly, other areas are left exposed. What happened here, quite obviously—you do not need to be an Einstein to work it out—was that Coastwatch management rationalised the deployment of vessels as a matter of priority. The vessel has now of course been taken into tow and removed from the theatre, as it were. COMMENT: This is the supposed answer to the above question; BUT until the vessel was boarded no one could tell what was on board and what threat it was to Australia . An deserted vessel could have been ravaged by the plague, foot and mouth, murder and mayhem, or a myriad of pestilences dangerous to Australia

I find it absolutely astounding that in the face of a whole lot of public interest matters occurring in Australia today this is the issue that the opposition would bring to question time—a vessel floating quite harmlessly in the vast oceans off the northern coast of Australia . What does that say about the political acumen of the opposition? The only policy that I can think of that the Labor Party has brought to the table in the last 10 years with respect to our northern coastline is that of a coastguard. The utter lack of understanding that the opposition brings to the table when it comes to the surveillance and management of the security of our northern shores never ceases to amaze me. COMMENT: This response shows a greater lack of understanding of border controls than anything the Opposition has proposed.

At one point the opposition actually suggested, and even to this day I find this one of the most remarkable pieces of political policy making in the history of the nation, that helicopters should be deployed with armed gunmen on board strapped to the side to shoot out the motors of illegal fishermen. This was actually opposition policy. Mr Deputy President, can your mind’s eye actually envisage this—a helicopter flying low over foreign a foreign fishing vessel with a person strapped to the side firing live rounds into the vessel? I must say that goes down as the gold medal winner for the most reckless, impractical and ridiculous policy initiative I have ever heard. It was coastguard mark 3, if my memory serves me correctly. What does that tell me about the quality of the opposition’s nous, knowledge and ability when it comes to the protection of our northern shores? Obviously it is a very adverse reflection on their ability and capability. COMMENT: When the attacks on our fishing stocks become even more critical – lets see what the Government will do to stop the illegal fishing – drop leaflets telling the offenders to leave our waters?

Currently Australia is maintaining a very large force of patrol boats from Cairns to Broome. Indeed, I have had experience in the apprehension of seven Indonesian fishermen. These waters are vast, and the small wooden boats are not detectable on radar. This is a major problem for current apprehension techniques. When one does apprehend a foreign vessel inside our economic zone and our fishing grounds, communications have to go back to Canberra with respect to the processing of the apprehended individuals. I was fortunate enough to be on an Armidale class patrol boat that apprehended seven Indonesian fishermen. They were dealt with very efficiently and properly. Indeed, they seemed to quite enjoy the experience of getting off these very small boats. (Time expired) – COMMENT: Senator Johnston seems to have missed the point – the fact that the fishermen did not mind being caught means that they did not see being apprehended as a detriment – rather it was an advantage. SO is the way we handle the illegal fishermen an incentive to fish illegally. Have we made it so comfortable and rewarding that they would rather be caught than fish. It would have been helpful if Senator Johnston had suggested some policy that would have made the capture of these illegal fishermen considerably less appealing and more like a punishment 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
The Jian Seng
Speech

Senator LUDWIG OPPOSITION ( Queensland ) (3.13 p.m.)—It is interesting that this government talk about what we should not talk about. Let us talk about what they have failed miserably in—protecting our northern shores. If Senator Johnston wants to find out what they think, he should go up and talk to some of the fishermen in the northern parts of Australia . They think it is critical. They are worried and concerned that this government is not acting at all. That is the critical issue. Yes, Senator Johnston, we do need a national coastguard. That is a must. You fail to appreciate that this is a serious issue that is affecting our northern shores and needs to be taken seriously and addressed. This government is nothing but short and soft on border protection. COMMENT: North coast fishermen are apprehensive about the potential of attacks by illegal fishermen on their boats and catches. Within the next 3 years Australian fishermen will be engaged in fire-fights with illegal fishermen and Australian vessels will come under fire from foreign vessels in Australian waters – it is a fair question to ask what is the long term plan to stop this happening

From Broome to Bamaga, there is a plague of plundering that threatens our national fish stocks and the sustainability of our large commercial fishing industry. It is a real threat of national significance, yet there is no doubt that illegal fishers do their prime damage to the families of those who work on Australian fishing fleets and in allied industries. That is where the real damage is done. But does this government seem to care? From what Senator Johnston said, it does not seem to care about it at all. Think about the environmental cost as well, in terms of the pillage that occurs. These pirates—because they are nothing else but pirates—who are stealing our fish do not respect quotas, size limits, laws on netting and by-catch, and so on, that we have put in place and that have made our commercial fishing industry a sustainable industry. COMMENT: this is the hub of the issue that the Government is avoiding discussing at Question Time – why not tell the public what is the plan and what is proposed and how it will work? .

As well, think of the massive quarantine risk that can occur. These illegal fishers can land and are landing on the shores of our Australian mainland. Aboard these vessels are dogs and animals for food, such as chickens, pigs and goats. There are also plants and vegetable matter. But, instead of that, what Senator Ellison argues today and what Senator Johnston says is that the tanker was an unmanned vessel. You do not know that until you find out—until you actually go near it to see that it is unmanned. One of the first things that you would expect a good border protection agency to do is to not only say, ‘We’ve got some intelligence that there is a wandering 80-metre tanker’ but to say who is on board, what is on board, what are they doing and where are they going—some basics that this government seems to have completely failed on getting right in this instance. .COMMENT: Spot on!

Of course, the risk is not only to our fish stocks; an obvious risk is also to our agricultural industries. If you think about it, if there is one chicken with the bird flu on board from Indonesia , you can say goodbye to both the chicken and the egg for Australia . There is a clear and present danger to both our economy and our environment. The Howard government’s response to this has been abysmal—even laughable. The problem is that the families of our commercial fishers are not laughing at all about this. They think it is very serious. They have raised it time and time again with their state governments; their state governments are doing as much as they can do about it. It requires a national response. This government is not meeting the challenge. The fishers and their families do not find it very funny that an 80-metre tanker can penetrate our so-called sophisticated border security, all the while unmanned and adrift.

We are all used to the fact that the system often cannot detect the smaller vessels that hide in mangroves and estuaries during the day to emerge only at night to continue their voracious attack on Australian fish stocks—that is one of the challenges that you have to meet—but it is truly pathetic if the system cannot detect an 80-metre tanker drifting in our waters on an erratic course dictated by wind and current. Far from being border control, this system literally has a hole that you could drive a tanker through. That seems to be what our border security system is now: it is that porous. COMMENT: questions that need action and not political grandstanding by the Government

That is not the only outrage. My office has received details from the Queensland Gulf Fishermen’s Association of illegal fishers wandering ashore and even fishing upstream in the many rivers that empty into the Gulf of Carpentaria . We have all seen wells that have been dug in the Northern Territory and camps in Western Australia , and still this government maintains that it has an adequate border security system. It is just laughable. COMMENT: Customs Officers have passed this information to Customs Management yet the Government does not acknowledge that fact. So has Customs Management told the Government and is the Government misleading the public about the porous nature of our border resources?

The latest outrage is not illegal fishing but illegal hunting. There is hunting of our green sea turtles—an endangered species. These harmless creatures want nothing more than to be left alone, but they typically end up being flipped on their backs and cut open along the seam where the top and bottom halves of their shell join while the creatures are still alive, and this government does nothing. (Time expired) COMMENT: Emotive but true, and deserves answers and plans of action by Government

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
The Jian Seng
Speech

Senator PARRY ( Tasmania ) (3.19 p.m.)—As a member of the government, I take exception to this being referred to as a laughing matter. The government have demonstrated over many years that we take border protection and the protection of our fisheries in a very serious manner. To suggest that it is a laughing matter from this perspective is totally incorrect, and I reject that from Senator Ludwig in his address a moment ago.

I would like to take us back to when Senator O’Brien raised a few issues. He at least acknowledged that the vessel was not confirmed as being totally unmanned for the entire duration that it was in Australian waters. The Hansard will reflect that Senator O’Brien said, ‘We don’t know that. It was probably unmanned, but we do not know that.’ That is correct and that was correct at the time of the first sighting of that vessel. Senator O’Brien also indicated that the minister had stonewalled answers over the last two days. That is totally incorrect. Again, the Hansard will reflect that the minister has answered these questions adequately, honestly and in a manner that the Australian public would expect. COMMENT: Not so  – by omission and avoidance the Minister has not answered the questions adequately or honestly and the answers are clearly not as the public does expect.

This minister, along with previous ministers, and also the policies of this government reflect that our concern is deep and very sincere and that we want to protect our borders. If we look at the record in recent years of border security in northern Australia , there has been very limited penetration. We are looking at a huge water mass—one of the largest water borders in the world—and we are doing a fantastic job with the conditions that we face and with the length of travel for vessels. The vessel was, after all, detected. It would be a different matter if it had come in and had gone. The vessel was detected and located and is now secure. COMMENT: weird logic – it was abandoned after doing what it was someone wanted it to do. It could not leave – and has only become secure for that reason.

The other matter concerns the potential danger or threat. Senator Ludwig highlighted issues like animals, vegetables or other forms of contamination. The preliminary inspection of the vessel revealed that that is not the case. All necessary precautions were taken to ensure that, once the vessel was taken into our protection, Australia was not in any way compromised by way of biodiversity hazards or, in particular, any other forms of material that may infringe our particular quarantine standards. COMMENT: More weird logic – that there was no quarantine threat to Australia was only discovered AFTER it was boarded. It may have held many quarantine or other risks till an hour before it was boarded – but those risks may have been off loaded anytime before the Strom Bay arrived

If we look at the particular facts—and we must use facts, Mr Deputy President, not speculation; some of the words that have been used have been a little bit alarming—they are that this vessel, after being discovered, was monitored and then taken into protective custody, if I can use that phrase for a vessel. This vessel has proven to be of no threat to Australia . COMMENT: but only AFTER it was boarded – 17 days after first being sighted in Australian waters

Yes, there will be gaps from time to time in any border security; in any border protection anywhere in the world there will have to be gaps. But I am very proud to be a member of a government that has addressed most, if not all, of the issues. This government is moving forward with a definitive policy to protect northern Australian borders and indeed all our fisheries. We have a combination of policies that complement each other, and those policies address all of the issues required to protect the northern parts of Australia and indeed other parts of our border. COMMENT: if the policies are working then how come the vessel was drifting for 17 days (or part thereof) as a potential risk in Australian waters.

The Australian Customs Service have acted extremely well in this and, together with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, took immediate action—not delayed action but immediate action—when the alert about the vessel was apparent. Also, Customs acted in such a way that they did not endanger any members of the service who went to apprehend that vessel. Their actions were undertaken in a very appropriate manner. In particular, the guiding of the vessel during the night-time hours after the authorities first intercepted that vessel, not boarding until daylight hours, was a very sensible measure, not a delayed measure. COMMENT: Right, Customs did swing into action when eventually our border resources identified the risk – however our resources are so slim and under resources and inadequate that the vessel did not fall under any effective surveillance system till after being in our waters for 17 days. The fault is not Customs it is the resource levels provided by Government.

This government is just superb in its handling of these matters and to suggest otherwise beggars belief. I just cannot understand how, when we have such a secure arrangement in northern Australia , the opposition can concentrate on an issue like this. It must be a matter of the opposition not being able to find attack points on the government on any other issue, so they pick something that is very minor but give it a sense of alarm by the language they use. This government is protecting Australia in every way, shape and form and will continue to do so. This government has a fine record in that regard. COMMENT It beggars belief that any member of the Government does not recognise the significance of this incident as a warning about the need to bolster and enhance the resources of our northern defences.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
The Jian Seng
Speech

Senator CROSSIN ( Northern Territory ) (3.24 p.m.)—I also rise to take note of the answer given by the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Ellison, in question time today in relation to the ‘ghost ship’ that has been drifting in the Gulf of Carpentaria , the Jian Seng. I have to say in response to the previous speaker in this chamber that this is not a superb example of how this government is handling the illegal fishing situation in this country. In fact, this is another example in a string of incidents in the last year or so of the total incompetence of this government. COMMENT: any incompetence of the Government is exemplified by the lack of concern about this incident and the need to review resources in the light of this event.

I note that Minister Bailey is roaming around the world trying to defend the Tourism Australia slogan ‘where the bloody hell are you’. Let me tell you that people in the north of this country, particularly people in the Northern Territory , are wondering exactly where this government is. Where the bloody hell is this government when it comes to protecting our coastline, when it comes to protecting our fishing stocks and, today, when it comes to protecting our turtles? Today on the front page of the Northern Territory News there is a large headline and a graphic photograph of a group of illegal fishers dragging their net up the Australian beach which contains two green turtles, as my colleague Senator Ludwig mentioned before. So we have not only illegal fishing but also illegal hunting happening in the north of Australia , and the government is nowhere to be seen in terms of trying to tackle the situation. COMMENT: The Government should hang its head in shame for trying to rationalise the holes in our northern defences. To have illegals hunting on Australian beaches while the Government claims that there is no risk to Australia and that our border protection is functioning well, is a clear and unconscionable act to mislead the public.

Let us have a look at what we have here. We have a minister who says that an abandoned tanker floating in the Gulf of Carpentaria was actually doing nothing illegal. How would you know that? How do you know that unless you actually respond to a warning and get on board and find out exactly what is going on? We have a tanker that we believe was probably a resupply ship for foreign fishing boats, so the question is: was that the case? Was this in fact a boat that contained rice, other food supplies and stock to replenish the mother ship in an illegal fishing chain, one of many that are operating in the north of Australia ? And, if that is the case, why don’t we know what it was doing? Why don’t we know where it came from? Why don’t we know what it was doing floating aimlessly around the Gulf of Carpenteria , only 40 kilometres from the coast? So much for this government’s claim that it is strong on border protection. What a joke. This government is extremely weak on border protection—very weak, in fact—and the holes in this particular policy position are slowly being uncovered, incident by incident. COMMENT: these are questions that the Government should have sought answers to and provided to the public without the Opposition having to drag the information our piece by piece. Clearly the whole matter is embarrassing to the Government so they attack the opposition as the only strategy option they think is appropriate.

The ship was in the zone for two weeks, nearly 17 days, before the authorities even intercepted it. Senator Ellison said yesterday that it was spotted by Coastwatch on 8 March. We now know that that was not true. It was actually spotted by a barge captain. So we now have barge companies in northern Australia playing the role of protectors and keepers of our coastline. A barge captain tips off this government that there is some ship floating around there in the Gulf of Carpentaria on 8 March; that was when Coastwatch were first alerted to this and first knew about it. But then it takes them until last Thursday or Friday to get out there and have a really good look at what this tanker or ship is supposed to be. Is it in fact the same vessel? We still do not know the answer to that. Is the vessel that the barge captain saw back in early March the same vessel that Coastwatch spotted last Friday and then bothered to board on Saturday?

The truth of the matter is that under this government our coastline is extremely vulnerable. The policy that this government has is not working. Authorities are unable to track illegal vessels. Last year alone, we had 13,000 illegal vessels sited in Australian waters—and only 609 of those were apprehended or detained—let alone those that get right in close to our shores, in the mangroves, up the rivers or, as in the case of this ship and its people, park on a beach near Milingimbi, actually slashing and killing turtles for their own game. So when is this government going to get serious about tackling the invasion of our coastline and the pilfering of our fishing stocks and step on board and do something about it? One hundred thousand dollars to the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory might be a start, but it is a very meagre contribution to tackling this situation. The government needs to put together a policy that coordinates all of the agencies concerned—(Time expired) COMMENT: Seems a reasonable expectation – but the silence of the Government is deafening!