Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I will get some information for you. I will just finish my comments. I am just responding to the issues which have been raised by members of the opposition, particularly the points raised in the amendment, which obviously the government will not accept because we have already addressed these issues. You highlight the significance of this as a current issue. It is only an offence from within the airport boundaries, but certainly it also needs to be an offence from outside. The amendment will also provide a clearer basis for prohibiting conduct within an airport which can lead to serious disruption, such as leaving baggage unattended in a public area of an airport. The new regulation-making power does not extend to disruptive activity which forms part of the normal and usual operations of an airport or airline as a place of business, such as lawful industrial action by airport or airline employees.

The amendment to aviation security screening exemptions for some dignitaries reflects a balance between Australia’s international legal obligations and security outcomes. The amendment will provide flexibility only to exempt dignitaries, most, if not all, of whom would be expected to enjoy privileges and immunities under international treaty obligations that we are already bound to comply with. The actual list of persons who might be exempt will be determined by the government, following consultation and advice from relevant agencies. The amendment that the Labor Party has moved calls for further consultation. That consultation will take place in developing and putting into regulation that list of people who will be exempt from screening. Any airline still has the ultimate right to determine which passengers it will carry and under what conditions.

The Aviation Transport Security Act now contains further powers for Australian Customs officers at airports and implements one of the recommendations from the aviation security report by Sir John Wheeler. Again, in response to one of the amendments which have been moved by the Labor Party, the first amendment to the Civil Aviation Act covers dangerous acts committed by a person on the ground or on board an aircraft, having particular regard to the direction of laser beams at aircraft. The second amendment to the Civil Aviation Act provides new powers to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to enable it to implement a new drug and alcohol regime for the civil aviation sector. This amendment will provide safety benefits for both aviation workers and the broader community by appropriately addressing the risk of impaired aviation personnel.

Lastly, there are also amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act that include enhancements to the transport security program regime. These amendments are consistent with requirements contained in the maritime regime. One of the comments by the member for Batman was with regard to drug and alcohol testing. I do not think that there would be an area of transport security that is more important than this. This bill moves it down into the general aviation area, and I outlined how that was going to work. The member for Batman made the point that there needs to be broader consultation because there have been experiences in other workplaces. That is fine, and we think that we have undertaken all of that consultation. But the member made the point that it should be on the basis of harm minimisation. We do not believe that. We believe that it should be on the basis of zero tolerance. There should be no tolerance of any abuse of alcohol or drugs, not necessarily just by people who are in command of RPT operations but by people involved in GA operations that might have an impediment if, say, they are operating in and out of the same airport as an RPT operation. There should be zero tolerance in this area as far as drug and alcohol testing is concerned for people who are in charge of aircraft that might have to interact with RPT operations in major airports across Australia.

The other point that I want to respond to—and I have mentioned the effort that the government has put into it and the amount of money that has been spent on responding to the Wheeler review and its 17 recommendations—relates to the last part of the amendment moved by the opposition regarding expanding the powers of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement and Integrity. The government takes the view that the key issue in combating corruption is ensuring that the core law enforcement agencies maintain the highest standards of integrity. Those bodies are free of corruption. They are in a good position to ensure that allegations of corruption in other agencies are effectively investigated. The government is not persuaded that there is a need for the Integrity Commissioner to have a jurisdiction going beyond the ACC and the AFP, but, if there is a clearly demonstrated need, the act provides for jurisdiction to extend by regulation over other Australian government agencies. We are trying to ensure that there is a bit of extra flexibility so that Customs officers who might be working in that part of a secure airport area which is not being covered by the AFP have certain powers to be able to ensure that their security responsibilities can be discharged at that particular point.

In conclusion, in response to the point raised by the member for Melbourne Ports with regard to laser offences, I am advised that the penalties that apply are up to two years imprisonment under the Civil Aviation Act and a $5,500 fine under the Aviation Transport Security Act for offences that occur under that act. Those penalties apply to offences that occur within the boundary of an airport. As a result of this amendment, we are going to extend that so that offences outside of the boundary of an airport can be proved. So there are penalties and compliance mechanisms, and they are two years imprisonment or a $5,500 fine. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context