Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services to the Main Committee. I only wish he could make his way up here during the appropriation stage of the budget each year so as to enable him to be accountable to the parliament. I know that in the minister’s mind this represents slumming it.

With respect to the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, which amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the opposition support these endeavours, though we will move a second reading amendment highlighting our concerns about lack of proper consultation. Obviously the bill is about strengthening and clarifying a range of aviation safety and security provisions, which the minister has appropriately highlighted during his second reading speech this morning.

In particular, the bill has two primary objectives. Firstly, it ensures that a person who is outside an aircraft can commit the offence of interfering with aircrew or endangering an aircraft or passengers. I note this provision appropriately addresses recent concerns in the community about the pointing of lasers at aircraft approaching or taking off from major airports. The opposition fully support recent government endeavours on this front. It is not something we talk about publicly because we are actually fearful of copycat exercises amongst some of the more foolish members of the Australian community. It is something that the government just has to do in consultation with the aviation industry to try and avoid this very foolish and potentially dangerous act by irresponsible people in the Australian community. Secondly, the bill adds a new part to create the statutory framework to provide for drug and alcohol testing and management—issues which I will seek to address in my remarks.

There are also four changes to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Firstly, to more closely align aviation security legislation with maritime security legislation and make the transport security program processes more flexible; secondly, to provide for the making of regulations to prohibit activities outside airports which could adversely affect airport or aircraft operations, in line with the International Civil Aviation Organisation requirements; thirdly, to provide broader and more effective coverage of potential acts of unlawful interference with aviation, including further powers for Australian Customs officers at airports, in line with the recommendations of the 2005 Wheeler report—which was a well-prepared, independent review of airport security and policing for the government of Australia—and, finally, to provide for the making of regulations that would specifically describe those senior dignitaries and their families who are exempt from aviation screening—something which I as the shadow minister am totally opposed to.

The bill was appropriately referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. While the committee recommended that the bill be passed, it raised a number of concerns, which I seek to bring to the attention of the House this morning. Firstly, I am concerned about creating an exemption mechanism for senior dignitaries rather than using the case by case mechanism which already exists for security screening. I think that, in the international fight against terrorism, senior dignitaries ought to lead by example and not seek to be exempted from security screening arrangements in Australia, which ordinary Australians and international travellers accept as being part and parcel of how we travel around the globe and domestically at this point.

Several industry participants also expressed concern about these provisions—and perhaps the government should have regard for these concerns because these people are engaged in the fight against terrorism on a daily basis—including Virgin Blue Airlines, the Australian Airports Association and Adelaide airport, which are opposed to any exemption at all. Virgin Blue argued:

… the approach adopted by the government introduces security vulnerabilities and risks to the security framework—

and therefore the travelling public. We should have regard for the views of people who are engaged on a daily basis in the fight against terrorism. Clearly, if a person who is exempt from screening and clearance under legislation can enter a sterile area on board an aircraft whilst in possession of a weapon or a prohibited item, either intentionally or inadvertently, then this poses a risk to security. The committee appears to have reluctantly accepted the advice of department officials, who themselves were acting on the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General, that the amendments are necessary to meet Australia’s international legal obligations in relation to the processing of visiting dignitaries.

In the fight against terrorism, I simply say: let us do what is right for Australia domestically and internationally rather than trying to appease some well-heeled international dignitary who has his or her nose put out of joint because they have to go through the process of security, which every other Australian is expected to do, including politicians—and appropriately so—on a regular basis.

It was pointed out that the changes will not involve a large number of people; it will only create a power to grant an exemption. What is the next exemption? As appears in the second reading amendment, which I will move today, I call on the government to further consult with the aviation industry and unions to take into account their advice before exercising the power to exempt any senior dignitaries from security screening. Of course, such exemptions should only be granted to meet international legal obligations—should we have to have any at all—which were referred to by department officials in their evidence to the Senate committee.

My second concern relates to the introduction of drug and alcohol management and testing programs. I accept that, currently, this is a feature of day-to-day life in many industries. For example, previously, as shadow minister for resources for a couple of years, I went to numerous mining towns where this is a fact of life and so it ought to be. These measures are also appropriately required with respect to the driving of buses and trains in industries such as the public transport industry.

These measures are appropriately required to deliver better safety outcomes to Australian civil aviation and to maintain Australia’s international standing as a leader in aviation safety—something that we have always been proud of and something which we should go out of our way to preserve and protect. According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau pilot survey on the use of drugs and alcohol, more than 20 per cent of pilots who responded indicated that at some point in the previous year they felt that their safety had been compromised in some way by alcohol, drugs or prescribed medication.

The Hamilton Island air crash in 2002 in which six people lost their lives is believed to have been attributable, at least partly, to drugs and alcohol. Whilst I am broadly supportive of the introduction of drug and alcohol management and testing, I am concerned about the exclusion of certain stakeholders from the consultation process and the development of the detail. In essence, I am arguing that with a fuller consultation process we would have had a better opportunity to actually take everyone with us rather than having to deal with the angst that has been created amongst some stakeholders.

CASA has so far shown some willingness to consult further on implementation details but has not been willing to include the Australian International Pilots Association as formal members of the drug and alcohol project team despite the constructive contributions they have made to the process to date. The Australian International Pilots Association, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union have all raised issues about the implementation of the drug and alcohol management and testing regime but are broadly supportive of the government’s endeavours. In particular, the AIPA and the LHMU stress the need for an approach based on harm minimisation, education and rehabilitation rather than just punitive measures. Where we have done this in industry, combining the two has proved to be of great success to the employer and the industry and also of great benefit to the workforce and their families. I ask the government to have regard to the second string going to harm minimisation, education and rehabilitation because I think it goes hand in glove with doing proper and thorough testing. I refer to this in the second reading amendment I am going to move. I call on the government to consult further with the aviation industry and the workers’ representatives of the unions and to take into account their advice regarding the practical implementation of the proposed drug and alcohol management and testing regime, because that is what it is about. It is not about a position, but about how you go about implementing it now and taking the workforce with you rather than creating concerns and angst amongst the people on the ground.

The third issue relates to the proposal concerning Customs officers to implement recommendation VI of the Wheeler report, which says:

• all police, AFPPS and Customs officers deployed to an airport be given clear and unambiguous powers, including to stop, search, detain and arrest where necessary within the airport and adjacent roads and parking areas

Given that Customs officers will now be undertaking police-like activities, which I do not question, I think it is important that the powers of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity also be expanded so that it can oversee these activities. Accordingly, I raise this in my speech in the second reading debate as a request for the government to seriously consider. Let me also say that the government could have exercised more haste in acting on the recommendations of the Wheeler report of 2005. I note that there is more to be done with respect to those recommendations. I think the minister should do an audit and report to parliament as to where the full implementation of the Wheeler report is up to. My colleague the member for Brisbane and shadow minister for homeland security will have more to say with respect to this issue.

As we all appreciate, a strong aviation safety and security regime is essential to protect the reputation of the industry and the public which very much supports it. Air travel is safer than other modes of transport per passenger kilometre, and that is not often understood by the Australian or international communities. In 2005, the accident rate was one per 1.3 million flights. The safety of air transport has constantly improved over time and safety will remain the most important driving factor for future aircraft developments.

Aviation, as we appreciate, especially in Australia, is a vital industry not only to Australia but also to the international community. Interestingly, it is an industry that employs more than 50,000 Australians, that contributes around one per cent of GDP and moves 28 million people around the nation every year. It underpins Australia’s $81 billion tourism industry that contributes a further four per cent of GDP and employs another half a million Australian workers directly and almost 900,000 Australians workers indirectly. As we all understand, Australia is a sparsely populated island nation with wide, open spaces and large distances to traverse within the country and to connect us with the rest of the world.

Australia, unlike Europe, does not have alternative transport options or areas that are densely populated and where there are large internal markets for the movement of goods, services and people. Air transport is responsible for 99 per cent of Australia’s international passenger movements each year, with about 18.1 million air passengers entering and leaving Australia. The growth in the industry, for example, is reflected in the fact that the movement of passengers through the Perth airport has doubled over the last three years—obviously due to the resource boom existing in Western Australia and the importance of Western Australia both domestically and internationally to the Australian economy. Further, within Australia, the arrival of low-cost airlines such as Jetstar, Virgin Blue and, now, Tiger have connected Australians to each other and improved access to markets for Australian businesses like never before. We as a community have won as a result of these low-cost carriers. People who never thought about the possibility of flying are now treating it as a realistic opportunity in life.

I also say, because I think it is important that we continue to raise these issues—especially after listening to the early news today in respect of protests next weekend against the further expansion of Heathrow airport—that recent attacks on the aviation industry from those who propose to tax its greenhouse emissions are of great concern to Australia’s future. I consider this is an elitist proposal that would have Australia return to the days when only the rich could afford to travel and it would penalise Australian businesses reliant on air travel to get their product to the world. Adding taxes and limiting access to air travel would send prices through the roof, isolating regional Australia from its city cousins and Australia at large from the rest of the world. This is a concept being heavily pushed in Europe, where distances between destinations are much shorter and rail and road networks provide alternative modes of efficient transport. This is despite the fact that every rail journey in Europe is subsidised by $US3 to $US9, while every air journey contributes $US6 to $US11 to government revenues. The aviation industry actually has a lot to be proud of when it comes to the environment, with innovation and technological advancements to improve efficiency.

See this speech in context