Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I thank those members who have participated in the debate on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. This is a bill that further strengthens the aviation and maritime security frameworks that are set up under the Australian Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. Amendments to both of these acts will make important changes to improve the flexibility and responsiveness of Australia’s transport security regime.

I welcome the fact that there is bipartisan support for this bill, but I will also make some comments on the contributions of the two coalition speakers to this debate. The first speaker, the member for Stirling, opposed the government’s changes which came into effect on Christmas Day last year making common-sense changes to what will be allowed on aircraft—specifically, the fact that metal cutlery will be allowed to be used on Australian aircraft. He argued that this presented a confused and inconsistent position from the government. It does nothing of the sort. The confused and inconsistent position of those opposite was highlighted by the fact that there were two coalition speakers and one said these changes were a bad thing and the other said they were a good thing. The member for Herbert, who spoke immediately after the member for Stirling, said—obviously not aware of the changes in regulations that the government has introduced—that the banning of metal cutlery, ‘Doesn’t seem to be consistent with a security risk.’ He was right and the member for Stirling was wrong. The government’s changes to the prohibited items list last year as part of the aviation white paper were common-sense changes based upon advice from the appropriate security agencies on risk.

We know that a range of items which were on the prohibited list, including nail clippers and other items, were simply a distraction for people working on the front line of security at airports, who need to identify real risk and make sure that we keep them out of our airports. We need to concentrate the effort and energy of those people working on the front line, upon whom passengers rely to keep them safe, by having a common-sense approach to this. This change is consistent with what happens in the United States of America and Europe; indeed, even the security-conscious country of Israel allows metal cutlery on planes. And we have made that change.

I object completely to the member for Stirling coming in here and trying to play cheap, inconsistent politics on national security issues. I have a great responsibility and I take my obligation seriously. I rely on expert advice. Expert advice must be followed in this area; expert advice, not politics, must dictate action. That is why we introduced the changes to the prohibited items list last year based upon risk. The fact that the only speaker from the coalition on this bill today put exactly the opposite position shows their inconsistency on these items.

But there is another area of inconsistency that I would ask the member for Stirling to consider, and that is the new regulation restricting access to the cockpits of aircraft, which was gazetted yesterday. This regulatory change was made last year and it was disallowed by the Senate. We are reintroducing this regulation. I call upon the opposition to agree to these common-sense measures to restrict cockpit access and safeguard Australian travellers based on advice from aviation security experts. As a result of the opposition’s reckless disallowance, there are currently no effective legal restrictions on who can enter the cockpit of an aircraft. It is simply unacceptable that such an important part of aviation security has been left to industry self-regulation.

By restricting access to the cockpit, the government is taking a strong, practical and common-sense approach to strengthen the last line of defence against unlawful interference with a plane. Aviation security should be a bipartisan issue but similar regulations were voted down by the opposition in the Senate in September last year. These regulations will commence on 22 May 2010. I ask the opposition to reconsider their position on this issue because access to the cockpit of a plane should be based upon operational need. That is why these regulations are important.

I thank the member for Herbert for his support in his comments about government plans to upgrade security at our regional airports. I note that in last night’s budget, as part of our $200 million aviation security package, $32 million was allocated to assist with the upgrade of security at our regional airports. I ask the member for Herbert to talk to his National Party colleagues about why they should support this change. It is a common-sense change based on advice from experts, which surely the opposition also received when it was in government.

This government is committed to ensuring our national security. The legislation before the House today contains some small but important measures towards achieving that end. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

See this speech in context