Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this important amendment bill and to add my voice to the concerns raised by the shadow minister. This bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and changes the regulatory arrangements in three important ways, as the shadow minister has explained. For the benefit of the House, I would like to briefly summarise the amendments proposed by the government. Firstly, schedule 1 alters the regulatory arrangements for airport security by creating event zones. These will be designed for use when conducting special events at an airport, such as the arrival and departure of visiting foreign dignitaries—for example, the arrival of the official delegation of the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to be hosted by Australia in 2007.

Secondly, schedule 2 creates a new division 2A of part 4 of the act to deal exclusively with the methods by which cargo is to be examined and cleared for air carriage. The schedule also allows for the creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses: regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents. The creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses seems to be a logical step. The one-size-fits-all approach under current circumstances imposes the same level of regulatory burden and red tape across all cargo carrying businesses, irrespective of the scale of their operations and without consideration of the business place in the chain of supply.

Finally, this bill proposes to give the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services the power to approve alterations to an existing transport security program. This will mean that such changes to security arrangements will be much easier to undertake than through the existing process, by which a program can only be changed by means of a formal revision.

While we on this side of the House support the measures in this bill, the opposition calls for the government to refer this legislation to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, and that call should be heeded. These matters are too important to be treated in the cavalier way in which this government treats important legislation, as the member for Calare pointed out yesterday. The Senate committee would be able to give these issues the serious consideration that they deserve.

I am very concerned that what the government has proposed in the Senate regarding the Senate committee process will severely water down Senate committee procedures and practices. Unfortunately, I believe it will lead to a lot of legislation not receiving the adequate scrutiny that it deserves in that forum. I think this is just another example of where the government is watering down the whole process of democracy in this country by removing parliamentary scrutiny at all levels and reducing debate on vitally important pieces of legislation and issues. I hope the government will see the light and change its mind on what it intends to do with the Senate committee process, because I believe abolishing a large number of committees and then putting government members in charge of those committees is a serious threat to our democratic process.

The problem is that the government is just determined to ram this legislation through the parliament without our being able to give it due attention. Once again, the Howard government is treating the parliament and all of its members with contempt. It is a clear sign of the fact that this government has been too long in office and its arrogance is palpable. It is our belief on this side of the House that this bill highlights the abject failure of the Howard government to come to grips with the increased demands on all transport systems in these days of heightened terrorist risk. Members will recall the chaos which surrounded the government’s appointment of Sir John Wheeler to review Australia’s airport security systems.

I am pleased that Sir John Wheeler was able to undertake this work for the government, given his deep understanding and broad experience of these matters. The recommendations in his report should have already been implemented but, sadly, they have not been. The fact remains that, if this government had been doing its job, there would not have been the need for such a review. The Wheeler report, of itself, was an indictment of the former minister. It cited completely inadequate information-sharing arrangements, the desperate need for better intelligence on criminal and illegal activities at airports and the need to X-ray all baggage and cargo.

The Wheeler report was also a de facto report card on the then minister: the report card said one word with a capital F, and that word was ‘Fail’. No wonder the member for Gwydir went scurrying off to early retirement on the back bench. He was a total embarrassment to the government and indeed, in my view, to The Nationals. It is doubly embarrassing for the government that one of the most neglected aspects of aviation security which Sir John identified was in fact regional airport security. This was one aspect of aviation security with which we would have thought the former minister would be concerned. But, no, as usual he postured and pouted on regional issues while failing in a real sense to look after the interests of regional Australians. In typical fashion, the then minister was more concerned to get some dubious regional projects through the vetting process of an intimidated and compromised bureaucracy. Meanwhile, regional airports have become a disgrace.

At the time, Sir John reported that airports at Gladstone, Grafton, Tamworth, Port Lincoln and Devonport did not even have screening of passengers, let alone of baggage. Some did not even have proper perimeter fencing. So much for the then minister. We all know that he established the Wheeler inquiry in a panic when he realised that his petulant obsession with handing out rorts to his coalition colleagues and turning a blind eye to the AWB giving funds to Saddam Hussein had distracted his attention from his day job of running Australia’s airport and aviation security systems. The fact that the minister has since resigned, pending his retirement from this place, is a plus for all Australians in many ways—not least for those who have a genuine concern for the safety of our transport systems.

It is vitally important that airport and aviation security be strengthened, but we need to ensure that no stones are left unturned in our pursuit of the best aviation airport security in the world, because that is what all Australians deserve. That is why the Senate committee should be asked to review the matters before the House in this legislation. Doubtless the government will reject this eminently sensible suggestion or, as I have said, because they are modifying the committee process in the Senate they might be able to get away with a kangaroo court type inquiry rather than a very transparent and appropriate inquiry.

Labor supports the passage of this bill, but further and better aviation security is required. The roll-out of the aviation security identification cards must be done immediately. The risks in not doing so are substantial, and I will cover some examples a little later. At risk is the safety of all Australians who travel by air and who work at airports. The stinginess of this government in failing to ensure that urgent upgrades are carried out is appalling. This government is willing to squander many hundreds of millions of dollars on taxpayer-funded political advertising, yet it will not spend the money necessary to ensure that all Australians can travel knowing that their safety is assured and that all Australians who run businesses at airports or who work at airports can do so safely. Put plainly, this government is playing with Australian lives. That is the tragedy of this government’s incompetent management of airport and aviation security. It must be fixed as a matter of urgency.

I want to look at some issues surrounding the airport in my electorate of Swan, Perth airport. I raise firstly an incident that happened over a year ago. I have talked about the need to improve the aviation security identification cards, but these are the sorts of things that can occur even if you do have in place a decent system of cards and identification. If you do not have policing in place to ensure that people with cards are screened, you will have all sorts of problems. In this incident that happened over a year ago, in March 2005, three allegedly inebriated men were able to scale the airport security fence and get on board one of our big aircraft. They spent over an hour on board this aircraft having a great old time in first class, drinking all the wine and whatever was left there. Finally, after an hour of being on the aircraft, they were apprehended and dealt with.

Unfortunately, the minister who was in charge of security at the time, Chris Ellison, claimed, ‘It doesn’t really matter, it was just a joke and, quite frankly, it’s not that much of an issue.’ The issue is this: if those people had intended to do some serious damage and were on this aircraft for over an hour without being apprehended, it could have created enormous problems for Perth airport or for any airport that did not have proper security in place. Despite the minister dismissing the incident as nothing more than a bit of drunken larking about, when these people appeared in court the lawyer who was prosecuting the case said that the matter was so grave and threatening, the magistrate should throw the book at the trio.

That incident, which happened at Perth International Airport, is one example of there being significant flaws in security. In another example, a senior citizen managed to wander onto the tarmac and climb aboard a plane that was bound for Singapore. He had no identification and no boarding pass. He might have been a little deranged. He managed to wander onto the tarmac and get on board the aircraft and he was told, ‘Hang on, you haven’t even got a boarding pass—there’s something seriously wrong here.’ It would not have mattered if he had had a security card, because no-one was bothering to police that particular problem.

We had another incident at Perth International Airport which was slightly different. A guy who was a bit unhappy with what was going on at the airport decided that he was going to have his own little protest and he rode his motorbike through the front doors of the international airport. He managed to drive right into the booking area and through the front windows. If he had been a terrorist, it would have created a serious problem for us at that airport.

I would also like to talk about what happens with cargo, given that this bill talks about doing some more screening. We have some serious problems at Perth airport, because it is on the way to the gulf in the Middle East and military aircraft often use the airport. A lot of explosives, rocket launchers and other sorts of military equipment is handled through the airport. I am very concerned that if people such as those I have mentioned can get on the tarmac and access ordinary aircraft then they could also access civilian aircraft that might be used by the military to carry military payloads. It is totally unacceptable that the security is so slack that these sorts of incidents can occur.

For example, not so recently the military put in a request to on-load 10,000 kilos of explosives at Perth, which request was knocked back. But you do not need a permit to load up to 3,000 kilos of high explosives on to aircraft operating out of Perth airport. Three thousand kilos is an enormous amount of explosives in its own right. The flight carrying that cargo is directed on its flight path across the suburbs of Perth on its way to either the eastern states or overseas. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you consider the impact of 3,000 kilos of explosives going off inappropriately because someone might have boarded the aircraft and set a charge, you realise that something needs to be done to ensure that these sorts of incidents cannot occur. That type of cargo not only needs to be screened but also protected when it is on the ground.

I was very alarmed to find out that, when we were leasing these aircraft previously, they were going to Pearce air base, where they were fully guarded, receiving a full SAS payload and coming down to Perth and, because they were considered to be commercial and not military aircraft when landing at Perth, they were subjected to no security whatsoever. In addition, often they would stay overnight on the tarmac before refuelling and taking off en route to the gulf. That is a frightening concept, when you consider that people without passes could access that tarmac with that sort of payload sitting there on the ground without adequate protection. We have now bought C17s, which will operate as military aircraft. But I am concerned that, if Perth airport is to be used in the future for loading and off-loading of those particular aircraft, we need to ensure there will be proper security at that airport to protect that cargo.

These are just some examples of the security issues at Perth airport, which I believe need to be addressed. If these things are happening at Perth airport, I am sure that these issues need to be addressed at other airports right across the country. I hope that the situation is improving but, as I said before, it is not clear at this stage whether the government will adequately deal with the situation.

I also see something in this bill about regulations to do with air shows at Avalon. It is great to see that the Avalon air show is coming up next year. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, we had the pleasure of going to it last year. It is a fabulous show for Australia; in fact, I understand that it is one of the best air shows in the world. I would urge anyone who has the opportunity to get down to Avalon to see it, and I commend the fact that we have some regulations there to help address that.

In conclusion, I again draw all members’ attention to the Wheeler report. In preparing for this speech, I reread that report. It is certainly worth reading. It highlights the fact that, while some of the issues he raised have been addressed, unfortunately we have a long way to go. On 29 March 2006, in his second reading speech to the House on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services proclaimed that aviation security is a high priority for this government. I think not. If that were the case, we would not have a situation where, more than four years after September 11, the government is still in a blundering mess when it comes to a nationally coordinated airport security policy. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context