Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think certain things happen in our lifetimes that we will always remember where we were at the very moment that they happened. I recall some of those events, like the assassination of John F Kennedy, when man first set foot on the moon, when Princess Diana died and, of course, the events of 9-11. The member for Melbourne Ports will be well aware where the Prime Minister was on the occasion of 9-11. He was in Washington, and he had first-hand experience of the trauma that the American people felt with the events of 9-11.

I will speak very briefly on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006, because aviation security is a high priority for the Howard government and the regulatory framework is under constant review to ensure that we can respond to changing threats to our aviation industry, our people and our economy. The amendments in this bill are not about increasing requirements and burdens on stakeholders. They are about making the existing legal framework more flexible so it can more easily and quickly meet a variety of needs on different occasions instead of being a one-size-fits-all approach—an approach which can be inefficient and unnecessarily burdensome on the stakeholders.

The bill has two aspects: special events at airports, and cargo before it is loaded on to the plane. Firstly, the bill creates event zones within airport boundaries, allowing flexibility to handle a range of special events at airports. Secondly, it broadens the security processes governing domestic and international cargo before it is loaded on to the aircraft, allowing more flexibility to meet the changing needs. The bill aims to better tailor aviation security outcomes to aviation business operations. Sometimes special events outside normal operational events can be held at airports. Examples would include a community event at a regional airport, an air show or the arrival of a foreign head of state at a major airport. It is not feasible under the act to specify general rules to apply to all such events because, firstly, airports differ in size and complexity; secondly, there is a great variation in the subject matter, size and complexity of different events; and, lastly, different types of events carry different levels of security threat.

The amendments to schedule 1 of the bill focus on creating a more flexible legal framework which allows different types of event zones to be prescribed to manage different kinds of events within airport boundaries. It does not necessarily mean tighter security processes for an event. With appropriate safeguards and risk assessment and evaluation, sometimes events will be able to be managed at a lower level of security than that which applies generally to the airside area. This could mean, for instance, relaxing requirements to display photographic ID and making it easier to permit the use of tools that would otherwise be prohibited items.

While export air cargo makes up only one per cent of Australia’s annual exports in volume, it represents 21 per cent in value, so the security of our air cargo supply chain is critical to our economy. Cargo is often handled by multiple operators, and a large proportion of our export and domestic cargo is currently unscreened. When you realise that 80 per cent of cargo is carried on passenger planes, you understand how important air cargo security is not just to the economy or to industry but to the safety of our people. One of our major concerns is explosive devices, but robust air cargo security measures the government believes necessary for the protection of our people, our trade and our economy are not possible under the current regulatory framework, because cargo is combined into the section of the act for screening people and baggage.

People and their baggage are identified and screened at airports before entering a sterile area. Cargo is different. The cargo security supply chain extends well beyond the airport environment and may be handled by a number of agencies between dispatch and the airport. The act is currently not flexible enough to accommodate that. It cannot, for instance, direct the cargo terminal operators to use explosive trace detection on cargo before it reaches the airport. Neither does the current legislation provide the flexibility for a layered approach. It does not distinguish between a multinational company with significant air cargo business transporting, storing and consolidating cargo and a small courier business which occasionally picks up an item that may be transported by air. Neither does it capture all businesses that handle air cargo.

This bill creates a separate framework for cargo regulation instead of including it with people and luggage and introduces a new class of regulated business so that a layered approach can be used to broaden the security coverage without imposing onerous burdens on the smaller players in the transport network. After extensive consultation, this was found to be the preferred option both for industry and for government agencies. The subsequent regulations will also be developed in consultation with industry.

These amendments do not introduce additional requirements on any industry stakeholders; what they do is establish a legal framework which allows regulations to be made specifically relating to the security of cargo before it is loaded onto an aircraft, instead of lumping it into the section of the act governing people and their luggage. It also provides more flexibility to deal with a diverse range of special events at controlled airports without endangering security or imposing unnecessary restrictions. As the minister said in his second reading speech, this bill is the first step in the review of aviation security legislation that was recommended in the 2005 Wheeler review. It is designed not only to improve security outcomes but also to allow for better alignment of regulations with actual operations in the air cargo industry. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context