.........................Sgd...............................................

MARATIME SECURITY - Maritime Security Identity Card - decision to refuse issue - adverse criminal record - threat to maritime security - mandatory considerations - decision affirmed

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)

Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (Cth)

Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Act 2021 (Cth)

Ahmad and the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs [2022] AATA 4779

Auscheck Regulations 2017 (Cth)

Explanatory Memorandum to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Act 2021 (Cth)

Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (Cth)

Ports Security - Flinders Port Holdings

Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Act 2021 (Cth)

Transport Security Legislation Amendment (Serious Crime) Regulations 2021

1. A person seeking entry to maritime ports in Australia is required to display a Maritime Security Identification Card (MSIC). Generally speaking, a person is not authorised to enter a maritime security zone unless they hold and display an MSIC or have an escort with an MSIC.
2. Mr Thompson (also referred to in these reasons as the Applicant) is employed on a casual basis as a truck driver. He requires access on an ad hoc basis to berths located at Inner Harbour and Outer Harbour, both of which are maritime exclusion zones.
3. This is the second time that Mr Thompson has applied for an MSIC. On 8 November 2022, a Delegate of the Secretary (the Secretary or the Respondent) refused to approve the issue of an MSIC. Later that month, the Secretary reconsidered the matter and affirmed the decision to refuse the issue of an MSIC. Mr Thompson then sought a review with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The proceedings were dismissed in June 2023 after the Applicant failed to attend a case event.
4. On 27 September 2023, the Secretary conducted an assessment under the AusCheck scheme and determined the Applicant had an adverse criminal record as defined in Regulation 4 of the Auscheck Regulations 2017 (Cth).[1]
5. On 11 December 2023, Mr. Thompson was notified by the Secretary that he had an adverse criminal record and on that basis was not eligible to be issued an MSIC. He was also advised that he may apply for a discretionary MSIC within 28 days of the letter.[2] The Applicant did so on the same day.[3]
6. After reviewing the application, on 29 February 2025 the Respondent decided to refuse to approve the issue of an MSIC to the Applicant. Mr Thompson then applied to the Secretary for reconsideration of the decision. The delegate affirmed the original decision and refused the issue of an MSIC to Mr Thompson on 2 April 2025.
7. On 12 August 2025, the Applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the Respondent's decision.[4] The application was heard in May 2025. Mr Thompson attended the hearing in person and represented himself. The Respondent was represented by Mr Northcote, a solicitor employed by the Department of Home Affairs, who attended by video link.

1. The MSIC scheme is established by the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) made under the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facility Security Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act). The purpose of the Act is to establish a framework to safeguard against unlawful interference with maritime transport or offshore facilities.[5] This is achieved through the development of security plans for ships, other marine transport operations and offshore facilities. These security plans include, amongst other things, measures to prevent unauthorized access to any port security zone.
2. The legislative scheme was amended in 2021 by the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Act 2021 (Cth). The amendment introduced an additional purpose of the Act to prevent the use of maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious crime.[6] The related Regulations were amended to establish new eligibility criteria for those with an adverse criminal record needing an MSIC or the related aviation security identification card.[7]
3. The objective of the amendments was to better target serious crime to protect the vulnerabilities present in the aviation and maritime sectors against the influence and infiltration by serious and organised crime networks.[8]
4. An MSIC is issued to identify a person who has been subject to a background check. A maritime industry participant[9] must not allow a person to enter a maritime security zone[10] unless the person holds and displays an MSIC or is escorted by someone who holds an MSIC.
5. Regulation 6.08C relevantly provides that a person may be issued with an MSIC if a criminal history check shows that the person does not have an 'adverse criminal record'. Regulation 6.07B(3) provides that a person has an 'adverse criminal record' if the person has been convicted of a tier 1 offence or a tier 2 offence or has been convicted of and sentenced to imprisonment for a tier 3 offence.
6. Regulation 6.07B defines a 'maritime-security-relevant offence' as an offence relating to a matter included in Schedule 1 of the Regulations. Schedule 1 of the Regulations lists the different tiers of offences deemed security relevant. Broadly speaking, tier 1 offences include terrorism, treason, espionage, human trafficking, organised crime and the like; tier 2 offences include offences against aviation or maritime transport; and tier 3 offences include serious offences against the person, property, sexual offences and offences of dishonesty.
7. An MSIC cannot be issued to a person convicted of a tier 1 offence, but otherwise, a person with an adverse criminal record and an operational need may receive a MSIC. Regulation 6.08F(1) allows for a person with an adverse criminal record to apply in writing to the Secretary directly for approval to issue an MSIC to the person, despite having an adverse criminal record.
8. The Secretary can do so if it is determined that the applicant does not constitute 'a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility' by considering the following factors:[11]
   • the nature of the offence;
   • if the person was convicted of the offence before becoming the holder of an MSIC, the length of the term of imprisonment imposed;
   • if the terms have been served, including in part, the applicant's conduct and employment history since the sentence was imposed; and
   • anything else relevant.
9. The Secretary may give approval subject to a condition.[12]
10. Regulation 6.08X(3)(a)(i) allows a person to apply to the Secretary for reconsideration of the decision to refuse the issue of an MSIC.
11. Regulation 6.08Z provides for an application to be made to this Tribunal for review of the decision made by the Secretary under Regulation 6.08X.

1. The issue for the Tribunal is whether the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the refusal to approve the issue of an MSIC to Mr Thompson. This requires the Tribunal to consider whether the Applicant constitutes a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility by considering the matters set out in sub regulation 6.08F(5) of the Regulations.
2. Mr Thompson contends that the correct or preferable decision is to set aside the reviewable decision and to grant him the MSIC. Mr Thompson advised the Tribunal he is also willing to accept any condition the Tribunal deems appropriate in order to remove the risk to maritime security.
3. The Secretary contends the only correct and preferable decision is to refuse to issue an MSIC to Mr Thompson as he constitutes a threat to maritime security. In their view, there is no condition available that would remove the threat to maritime transport or an offshore facility.

1. The Tribunal had the benefit of the following material;
   • The Tribunal documents;[13]
   • The Respondent's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions dated 17 January 2025;
   • The Applicant's submission received on 28 December 2024;[14]
   • Email chain between Mr Thompson and SAPOL between March and April 2025;
   • Screen shot of a WhatsApp conversation with 'Dennis' in April 2025.
2. The Tribunal heard from the Applicant and one character witness, Mr David Palmer (Mr Palmer), his current employment supervisor.

1. The Auscheck shows the Applicant was convicted of the following maritime security relevant offences listed in Schedule 1 of the Regulations:[15]

1. Traffic (type unknown) in a controlled drug - basic

1. Sentenced 1 year 10 months imprisonment
2. Non parole period 10 months suspended sentence bond $1000 18 months - BREACH - 24/04/2023
3. 2. Found proved 18 months imprisonment cumulative
4. Head sentence: 2 years 3 months 23 days imprisonment non-parole period 13 months

1. 3.1 an offence relating to production, possession, supply, import or export of an illegal of controlled substance

1. 3.21 an offence relating to money laundering or currency violations

1. The Tribunal documents also include the sentencing remarks in respect of the maritime security relevant offences committed by Mr Thompson. Those remarks provide context to the circumstances of the offending and of the Applicant personally.
2. In respect of the conviction for drug trafficking, the sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Soulio reveal:[16]
   • Mr. Thompson pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled drug. The circumstances of the offending were that police on foot patrol entered a toilet block and saw a number of young men, one of whom handed Mr. Thompson an amount of cash. When police searched Mr Thompson and the other men, several capsules, a cigarette lighter which had a false bottom that contained further capsules and cash were seized by police. Later that morning the police searched a hotel room, where Mr Thompson had been staying with his partner, where they located further drug paraphernalia;
   • The plea was accepted, and Mr Thompson was sentenced on the basis that the capsules in his possession were given to him that evening by his partner for personal use or to share with others, but that he agreed to sell two of the capsules for $50.00 to one of the men in the toilet block. That was the transaction interrupted by police.
   • Mr. Thompson was referred to a paediatrician as a child where he was initially diagnosed with ADHD. In his mid- teens he was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and later an autistic disorder;
   • A report prepared by Dr Young confirmed the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. The report also stated that Mr Thompson's ability to appreciate wrongfulness or the magnitude of his offending may be diminished by his diagnosis and social naivety.
3. In respect of the conviction for money laundering, the sentencing remarks of his Honour Judge Slattery reveal:[17]
   • Mr. Thompson pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly engaging in money laundering and, by committing the offence, also admitted that he breached the terms of a suspended sentence bond imposed by Judge Soulio on the 16th of December 2019 in respect of the drugs charges. The good behaviour bond was entered 2 days before the offending related to the money laundering;
   • The circumstances of the offending involved the altering of an invoice for the purchase of a truck such that instead of the proceeds being paid to the vendor, the funds were paid into an account held by Catchbite Pty Ltd, a company of which Mr Thompson was the sole director and sole shareholder. Several transfers and payments were then made from that account until the credit in the account was exhausted. Mr. Thompson received the benefit in the amount of $50,000 from the amount held in that account;
   • When interviewed by police, Mr. Thompson said that he was asked by 'Dennis' to establish Catchbite Pty Ltd and open a bank account in its name. Money was then transferred the money into the bank account and in accordance with the arrangements with Dennis, Mr. Thompson kept the sum of $50,000 from this account. The remaining amount was transferred to two bank accounts in the name of James Kennedy.
   • Mr Thompson was sentenced on the basis that he ought to have known that the money received into the account was tainted property. The Court also noted that Mr Thompson volunteered to police that he had opened multiple bank accounts and several million dollars had been moved through those accounts. This conduct was not the subject of any charges against him and he was not penalised for it as part of his sentence;
   • Mr. Thompson was warned by a number of people, including the bank, that fraudulent activity was, or could be taking place. However, he continued to act on the instructions received from 'Dennis' whom he only knew through an internet connection.
   • The Court had the benefit of a report from Professor Young who expressed concern that Mr Thompson's motivation to earn money together with his autism spectrum disorder makes him susceptible to predators and committing further offences.
4. In addition to the maritime relevant security offences, Mr Thompson has a more extensive criminal history which includes multiple driving offences, driving whilst disqualified, fail to comply with a bail agreement and breach of bond.[18]
5. Mr Thompson was released on home detention on 11 August 2023. Should the conditions of his release be observed, the home detention order will expire on 15 August 2025 or when he is released on parole.[19]

1. Mr Thompson provided a written statement to the Tribunal. He also gave oral evidence and was cross-examined by the Respondent. Mr Thompson answered the questions asked by the Tribunal and in cross-examination to the best of his ability.
2. The evidence of Mr Thompson can be summarised as follows:
   • Mr. Thompson resides with his partner, his five-year-old son and one-year-old daughter. He is currently working for Regent Logistics as a truck driver. He has been employed with them on a casual basis for the past couple of years;
   • In respect of the drug trafficking offence, Mr. Thompson confirmed the drugs were originally intended for personal use. He agreed to sell three capsules to a friend for $50 at their instigation. As he was about to hand them over to his friend, the police came into the toilet where the transaction took place and arrested him. He regrets his actions;
   • In respect of the money laundering offence, Mr. Thompson advised the Tribunal he was introduced to 'Dennis' through Gumtree. He confirmed that he has never met 'Dennis' in person and they only communicated through the messaging app 'Kik'. After establishing a connection, Mr Thompson agreed to sell goods such as fridges, freezers, laptops, coffee machines, clothes and shoes on 'Dennis's' behalf. He believed he was engaged in a legitimate business. It was not his intention to do the wrong thing, and he was taken advantage of due to his high functioning autism;
   • At the request of 'Dennis', Mr Thompson set up the company, Catchbite Pty Ltd and opened bank accounts in the name of the business. He believed the money deposited into the accounts was from the goods he was selling. He was unaware that 'Dennis' was intercepting invoices and the extent of the criminal enterprise until he was arrested and told by police;
   • Although Mr Thompson pleaded guilty to the money laundering offence, he says he was not guilty. He only pleaded guilty because his lawyer said that he should and he was told he would only receive a suspended sentence;
   • In cross-examination, Mr Thompson was asked some questions about whether he ought to have known the money received into the account was tainted property given the circumstances in which it was obtained and the concerns expressed by the bank, his friends and family. In response, Mr Thompson conceded that 'a normal person' would have known the money was not 'legit' but that he was unable to do so given his autism diagnosis;
   • He confirmed that he was released on home detention in August last year and he has complied with the conditions of his release, including random drug and alcohol tests;
   • Mr. Thompson indicated that he first applied for an MSIC in 2022 when he was working for Eagle Contractors. He was unable to proceed with the review of the decision to refuse the MSIC with the Tribunal as he was incarcerated in connection with the money laundering offences;
   • Mr. Thompson stated he held a Flinders Port Access Card (FPAC) when he was working for Eagle Contractors. As the holder of an FPAC he accessed the wharf for several months without incident. He also holds a Dangerous Goods Licence;
   • Mr Thompson stated that he sees a psychologist and has support as required from other workers;
   • Mr Thompson admitted that he has made mistakes in the past but is trying to do the right thing now. If he got asked to do the wrong thing, he would report it to police. He used as an example the recent provision of emails and messages from 'Denis' to SAPOL in respect of his alleged ongoing illegal activity.

1. Mr. Palmer is the Operations Supervisor for regional transport at Legend Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd. It was his evidence that:
   • He is the Applicant's direct supervisor. He has known him for just over one year. He is aware of these proceedings and that Mr Thompson has a criminal history; and
   • Mr Thompson is employed on a casual basis. He confirmed the Applicant is reliable, hard -working and gets his work done in a timely manner. There have been no problems connected to his employment.

1. The Tribunal is required to consider the matter afresh and is not bound by the reasons given by the original decision-maker. It was not in dispute that the Applicant has an adverse criminal record. Mr Thompson has been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of two tier 3 maritime relevant security offences. It is also not in dispute that he has an operational need for an MSIC in his current employment as a truck driver.
2. As the Tribunal finds that Mr Thompson has an adverse criminal record by virtue of being convicted and sentenced in relation to a maritime security relevant offence, the Tribunal must now consider whether Mr Thompson constitutes 'a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility' having regard to the mandatory considerations contained in sub regulation 6.08F(5) of the Regulations. Each of those considerations is discussed in turn below.

The nature of the offence the person was convicted of

1. On 16 December 2019, Mr. Thompson was convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $50,000, or a term of imprisonment of 10 years or both. This conviction falls under Item 14, tier 3 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.
2. On 24 April 2023, Mr Thompson was convicted of money laundering. More specifically he was convicted under s 138(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), which provides: 'A person who engages, directly or indirectly, in a transaction involving tainted property in circumstances in which the person ought reasonably to know that the property is tainted is guilty of an offence.' Property includes money and tainted property includes stolen property and proceeds of crime.[20] The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 4 years. This conviction falls under Item 21, tier 3 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations.
3. Mr Thompson committed the money laundering offence two days after he entered into the suspended sentence bond for his conviction for trafficking in a controlled drug. A breach of that bond was found proved.
4. In his evidence, Mr Thompson told the Tribunal that he did not think he was guilty of the money laundering offence notwithstanding his guilty plea. He said that he only pleaded guilty because his lawyer told him to and specifically promised he would not receive an immediate custodial sentence. He did not accept that he ought to have known the funds deposited into the account of his company were tainted. He says his autism disorder prevented him from coming to that conclusion and that he did not know the funds were tainted until told by the police.
5. Although the Tribunal recognises that Mr Thompson may have initially been duped by the architects of the money laundering scheme (a matter also accepted by the sentencing judge) and that he may not have actually known the funds were tainted until told by the police, that is beside the point. Mr Thompson pled guilty to the offence and he was sentenced on that basis. It is not open to the Tribunal to go behind the conviction or the findings of the District Court. The Tribunal places no weight on Mr Thompson's claim that he was not guilty of the offence.
6. Regardless, the circumstances relevant to the money laundering offences known to the Tribunal establish that Mr Thompson ought to have known the funds were tainted. He was told as much at the time by the bank, friends and family. Instead, he was willing to dismiss those concerns in preference for the reassurances from 'Denis', a person he had known only a short period of time, had never met in person and only dealt with via a secured messaging app.
7. In cross-examination he was unable to explain why he preferred to believe 'Denis' when he said the enterprise was legitimate over the concerns voiced by the bank, his friends and family together with the nature of the activity itself which involved substantial funds flowing through accounts in the control of Mr Thompson purportedly for the sale of various items. This is a demonstrated example of Mr Thompson's poor judgment, commercial naivety and vulnerability to manipulation.
8. The sentencing remarks for both offences refer to medical reports directed to the Applicant's autism spectrum disorder. Those reports suggest that his autism and social naivety make Mr Thompson vulnerable to predators and to committing further offences. At the time of the money laundering offence the sentencing Judge also observed that Mr Thompson was prepared to overlook a number of obvious matters to obtain a financial benefit.
9. These matters, being the vulnerability, naivety and poor judgment of Mr Thompson are of serious concern to the Tribunal in the context of maritime security, where criminal elements might target vulnerable insiders.

If the person was convicted of this offence before becoming the holder of an MSIC

1. Mr. Thompson does not and has not previously held an MSIC.

1. In respect of the drug trafficking offence, a term of imprisonment of 1 year and 10 months, suspended, was imposed.
2. For the money laundering offence, Mr Thompson was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months and 23 days. Concurrently to this, as he was found to have breached the suspended sentence bond, the suspension of the sentence for the drug trafficking was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of 18 months, which culminated in a total of 2 years, 3 months and 23 days. He was given a non-parole period of 13 months.

If he has served the term, or part of the term - how long it is, and his conduct and employment history, since he did so

1. Mr Thompson's term of imprisonment does not expire until 15 August 2025. He was, however, released from prison on 11 August 2023 into home detention. Unless he is granted parole or breaches a condition of home detention in the interim, he will complete his sentence on 15 August 2025.
2. The conditions of the home detention release order which are before the Tribunal, prevent the Applicant from leaving his residence except for the purpose of remunerated employment, urgent medical or dental treatment, to minimise death or serious injury or with the approval of a Community Corrections Officer. Those conditions also prevent Mr Thompson from owning a smart phone and restrict internet use.
3. In September 2023, Mr Thompson's lawyer requested that many of the conditions be eased.[21] It is not clear if the request was acceded to by the Department of Correctional Services. Mr Thompson in his evidence did refer to being subject to a curfew and reporting conditions. From this, the Tribunal infers that some of the conditions were varied. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thompson has failed to comply with any of the conditions associated with home detention. Indeed, there is evidence to show Mr Thompson passed all random drug and alcohol tests between July and December 2023.
4. Mr. Thompson has been employed by Legend Logistics since November 2023 on a casual basis. The character reference given my Mr. Palmer, who is the Applicant's current supervisor, as well as the other character references contained in the Tribunal documents were favourable to Mr Thompson in a professional setting.

If the whole of the sentence was suspended, how long the sentence is, and his or her conduct and employment history

1. Although the Applicant received a suspended sentence in respect of the drug trafficking offence, this was revoked when the breach of bond was found proved.

Anything else relevant the Secretary knows about

1. According to the criminal history check, in addition to the maritime security relevant offences, between the years of 2013 and 2021 Mr Thompson has been convicted of a further 16 disclosable offences. Some of the offences resulted in Mr Thompson receiving periods of disqualification on his drivers license, the imposition of fines and being subjected to a good behaviour bond. Some offences were also in respect of driving whilst under disqualification, breach of bail and breach of bond.
2. Mr Thompson also advised the Tribunal that he obtained a FPAC when he was working for Eagle Contractors in 2022. Having been granted the FPAC he was able to gain access to secured areas at the wharf, which he says he did so for several months without incident.
3. The Tribunal understands that a FPAC is required before entry is allowed into ports in South Australia within the control of Flinders Port. A FPAC should only be issued to those people who hold an MSIC. The application form requires the applicant to provide their MSIC number and that they have read and agreed with Port Access Requirements, which relevantly include that they will keep any required licences (including an MSIC) current during the access period. [22]
4. Although an MSIC is required in order to obtain a FPAC, the application form states it can be submitted with evidence that an application for an MSIC has been made. Either Mr Thompson has never held an FPAC (a copy of his FPAC was not provided to the Tribunal) or it was granted on the basis that an application for an MSIC had been made. Mr Thompson applied for, but was refused an MSIC in 2022. Although he filed an application for review of the decision with the Administrative Review Tribunal. He did not pursue the proceedings as he was remanded in custody in respect of the money laundering expenses.
5. Mr Thompson's reliance on his good conduct at the wharf on account of his FPAC is misconceived. When the Secretary decided to refuse to issue an MSIC to Mr Thompson, Flinders Port should have been advised of this outcome and his FPAC cancelled. Mr Thompson should have been aware that the FPAC must only be issued to those people who hold an MSIC and therefore his access was unauthorised.
6. Mr. Thompson had recently been released on home detention when he made the application for the MSIC the subject of this review. The conditions imposed place significant limitations on his liberties and include close supervision. Those conditions will remain in place until August 2025. His recent conduct must be viewed in this context.

1. The Act together with the Regulations operate to safeguard against unlawful interference with maritime transport and offshore facilities. An MSIC allows unmonitored access to security sensitive areas for Australia's ports and provides the opportunity for the holder to commit unlawful interference or the undertaking of a serious crime. This can be directly through their own actions or indirectly by using their access to facilities and information to aid others in those activities.
2. The grant of a discretionary MSIC to individuals with an adverse criminal record should therefore not be regarded as of right. It is only granted to those individuals who do not pose a threat to the security of the maritime transport facilities
3. Having considered the mandatory factors, the Tribunal is not satisfied Mr Thompson does not constitute a threat to the security of maritime transport. This is because:
   • The recency, nature and seriousness of the two maritime security relevant offences the Applicant has been convicted of;
   • Mr Thompson is still serving a sentence of imprisonment for a tier 2 offence. In the matter of Ahmad and the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs[23] the Tribunal observed it must be an exceptional case to justify the grant of an MSIC to a person who is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment for a tier 2 or tier 3 offense. There does not appear to be anything exceptional in the circumstances of this matter;
   • Mr. Thompson is currently on home detention and since his release has been subject to strict conditions and supervision. For example, he is only allowed to leave his home for restricted purposes, is subject to random drug and alcohol testing and has restricted access to the internet and mobile phone services. His conduct since his most recent conviction in the absence of these restrictions has not been demonstrated;
   • The circumstances of Mr Thompson's conviction in respect of money laundering demonstrate he is vulnerable to exploitation from criminal actors that could lead to direct or indirect facilitation of unlawful interference with a maritime facility;
   • The opinion of an expert, as recounted in the sentencing submissions, opine Mr Thompson's autism disorder and social naivety make him susceptible to manipulation and further offending;
   • In addition to the maritime security relevant offences, Mr Thompson has a number of other offences of concern, including driving disqualified, failure to comply with bail and a breach of bond which involve contravening a court order. Mr Thompson committed the second maritime security relevant offence just two days after receiving a suspended sentence for his first maritime security relevant offence. Those trusted with an MSIC must have respect for in a willingness to uphold the law and the associated security responsibilities;
4. The Tribunal has taken into account the limited but positive character references provided by the Applicant which were written by former employers. The Tribunal acknowledges the contention of Mr Thompson that he would not willingly engage in any further offending and his clean drug and alcohol tests. However, these do not outweigh the concerns highlighted in these reasons.
5. The Tribunal commends Mr Thompson for his commitment to making a better life for himself and acknowledges the challenges his diagnosis brings. The decision of the Tribunal to affirm the decision to refuse an MSIC was not taken lightly given it may have an impact on the scope of his employment, although the Tribunal observes he has been able to work regularly as a truck driver.
6. A decisive factor relates to the Applicant's vulnerability to exploitation. He has the responsibility of a young family. Mr Thompson is currently serving out his most recent sentence, having engaged in organised criminal behaviour requiring connections with other criminals associated with money laundering. His vulnerability and social naivety connected to his autism diagnosis remains a risk. While Mr Thompson claims to be under the ongoing care of a psychologist in respect of his autism, there is no evidence of this before the Tribunal, the effectiveness of that treatment or whether it has had any impact on this aspect of his behaviour. He is highly susceptible to exploitation by organised criminal elements operating within the ports and therefore the Tribunal cannot conclude that he is not a threat to the security of maritime transport or an offshore facility.
7. The Tribunal also considers there are no conditions that can effectively militate against that risk.

1. The Respondent's decision not to approve the issue of an MSIC to the Applicant is the correct and preferable decision and should be affirmed.

Mr R Northcote, Disputes and Corporate Law Division, Home Affairs

[5] s3 of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facility Security Act 2003 (Cth) (the Act)

[6] Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Act 2021 (Cth)

[7] Transport Security Legislation Amendment (Serious Crime) Regulations 2021 (Cth)

[8] Explanatory Memorandum to the Transport Security Amendment (Serios Crime) Act 2021 (Cth)

[9] This is defined in s 10 of the Act to mean such bodies as a port operator, port facility operator, ship operator, offshore industry participant and contractors to those bodies and person s who conduct a maritime related enterprise.

[10] This is also defined in s 10 of the Act and means port security zone, ship security zone, on-board security zone or an offshore facility zone.

[11] Sub regulation 6.08F(6) of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (the Regulations)

[12]Sub regulation 6.08F(6) of the Regulations

[20] s130 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)

[22] See Ports Security - Flinders Port Holdings

[23] [2022] AATA 4779 at [49]