Security debate is on two fronts

Much had been made of data and a leaked report showing a disproportionate number of people with criminal records working on the waterfront.
However strong such a link is, recent announcements that the government will address these shortcomings, along with improvements to airfreight security, will nevertheless tighten the process for those applying to work at ports around the country.
A Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC) isn’t the sort of ticket you want to give away without due vigilance.
However, elsewhere in the maritime security debate, the pendulum is being seen to have swung too far the other way.
Filtering those with criminal records from working on the docks remains an entirely separate issue to the degree to which port operators are complying with stringent security standards.
Changes to port security legislation since 2001 caused a flurry of announcements in the years that would follow, as ports around Australia all brought themselves into line.
Many ports were later recognised for how they had created security zones and procedures. These kept the bad guys out without unnecessarily impeding the operations of those with regular and legitimate interactions in the maritime zones.
The cost of compliance was substantial. Ports chose to pass it on to shipping lines by way of increased security charges – levies flagged as necessary to put in place the systems and security infrastructure needed to comply with the new national standards.
But not much has changed in the last few years in security requirements placed on ports – the new gates, closed-circuit cameras, perimeter fencing and advanced monitoring systems are in place.
So many shipping lines cannot fathom why several ports have increased their security charges over the past 12 months.
With the capital-intensive systems installed, shipping lines expected that maintaining security at that level ought to be much cheaper than during the years of the security fit-out.
Several ports that Lloyd’s List DCN spoke to referred to the rigorous and at times onerous security audits conducted by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
Contrary to claims from shipping lines that security costs should be lower, several ports said their costs were still going up, to the point where the increased security levies were not covering the additional cost of compliance.
A senior ports executive told Lloyd’s List DCN that it was only now becoming apparent to port managers how much time they were spending on security compliance, to the detriment of other important tasks such as daily operations and long-term investment planning.
The audits typically identify a list of issues, often minor, to be addressed, such as the need to install a new security sign.
But it is feared that costs will keep rising if a nit-picking approach necessitates that more gates be manned or more staff brought in to handle the administration of security.
It is understood that ports have sought to raise the topic with the department through their membership of Ports Australia, but this has had mixed success.
The ports’ representative body has avoided coming across as too heavy-handed on the topic, which it has recognised as one of a number of issues to have upset port authorities.
But the softly-softly approach may not be having the desired effect.
It could be time for ports to collectively rock the boat.