Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011 is designed to make a series of amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to enhance Australia's ability to respond to emerging threats and clarify existing provisions in the legislation.

The coalition in government had a strong record of securing Australia's borders by strengthening aviation security. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the coalition took action to restructure Australia's aviation security regulations and over time implemented sensible changes to respond to technological advances and the broader security environment.

We also undertook a range of new initiatives to help ensure that our borders were safe. We substantially upgraded the quarantine service, more than doubling it in one budget alone. We also increased inspections at airports and made sure that almost 100 per cent of passengers coming into Australia went through a proper customs and quarantine check and therefore we could be confident that our borders were secure.

Unfortunately, since the election of the Labor government, many of those measures have been eroded and last night's budget was no exception. Unfortunately, the government is continuing to reduce its investment in our borders and therefore exposing us to risks: quarantine risks, security risks and of course the risks of importation into this country of products and items that we do not want. Last night's budget imposed significant reductions on most of the border protection services: Customs, ASIO and even the Federal Police. This does not reflect a government that is serious about security. It comes into this chamber with amendments to transport security arrangements while, at the same time, it is eroding the investment in border protection services.

There has been particular concern about the running down of the number of people in and expenditure on quarantine. We now have a situation where the government has insufficient funds to be able to deal with disease incursions into our country. The small allocation that was in the budget will go nowhere near dealing with the serious issues associated with the eradication of pests that have come into this country since the election of the Labor government. We also have to be concerned about the real lack of commitment to biosecurity issues and the associated risks to our environment, agricultural production and our way of life when pest and disease incursions occur in Australia.

The government has lost its way in this area. It is a low priority for them and, unfortunately, the country will pay a very high price for this carelessness. Once, almost all passengers arriving in Australia could expect to have to go through inspections on arrival at our airports. Now many are simply waved through, because the government has so cut the numbers of Customs officers available on the front line that it is simply no longer possible to undertake the inspections that are really necessary if we are serious about these kinds of issues.

So, on the one hand, the government talks its rhetoric, but, on the other hand, has been cutting the services that can actually deliver better security. On top of that, of course, this budget has sapped funds from all sections in border security to try and fund the enormous cost overruns—perhaps $1.9 billion—that are a result of the influx of asylum seekers. Labor's inability to manage our borders and secure our nation is a significant threat to our future. It is disappointing, therefore, that the government is not prepared to devote the resources that are necessary to deal with these issues properly. They have got the policies wrong and now they have not got the resources to be able to administer them.

The soft approach that they are taking in relation to biosecurity issues—allowing imports from countries where diseases are prominent without taking appropriate measures to ensure that Australian industries are protected—is shameful. Frankly, it is shameful. And now there is the backdown in relation to New Zealand apples, which will effectively allow New Zealand apples to come into Australia without any special criteria at all to deal with fire blight. This disease has been the threat to the Australian apple and pear industry for generations. We have had tough rules to make sure that these diseases do not come to Australia and now the Labor government has agreed to protocols which make no different provisions for export of New Zealand apples to Australia than for countries that do have fire blight. There are no special arrangements at all. I think that, again, is Labor asleep at the wheel—or it just does not care and is more interested in making friends around the world and getting a seat on the Security Council than in actually looking after the interests of our country.

So on the one hand, there is talk about the importance of security through legislation of this nature. But in the really important things—the things that really matter—Labor is not prepared to devote the resources or make the appropriate policy decisions which will help secure the cargo coming into this country and make sure that our country is kept safe from and free of pests and diseases and security risks.

This bill implements some of the measures that were announced in the aviation white paper released in December 2009. The coalition has generally supported the measures put forward in the white paper in relation to aviation security as a logical progression of the Wheeler review of aviation security, which was completed by the former coalition government in 2005.

The bill is not major in its consequences. It makes four amendments. Firstly, the bill amends the definition of 'aviation industry participant' in the act to include accredited air cargo agents. The act distinguishes between registered air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents. AACAs include smaller operators involved in the aviation industry who have less complex business operations, including couriers and contract drivers. Currently the AACAs are not defined as aviation industry participants, which means they are not subject to the same level of obligations that applies to RACAs in times of heightened security. Importantly, AACAs are currently not subject to special security directions. In late October 2010, terrorists operating from Yemen attempted unsuccessfully to send explosive devices inside printers to the USA. In Australia, increased security requirements were implemented for cargo from Yemen and Somalia, using the special security directions. Including AACAs within the definition of an aviation industry participant will mean that they are also subject to special security directions and will allow for a more consistent response to security threats.

The amendments will also mean that AACAs must have a transport security program and will compel them to comply with incident reporting requirements. The burden on small business in having to develop and comply with these reporting requirements was a matter of concern to the opposition. These are small operators by definition. They are people who were previously not considered to be of such import in the chain that they needed to be included in the legislation. I accept that there is good reason to include in the legislation even those who may be just peripheral players, but it would be unfair if new legislation required the same kind of planning and regulations that apply to large businesses to also apply to these small operators. I have been assured that the burden on small business has been addressed, as the AACAs will complete an online application form which will automatically generate a transport security program which they can print off and keep for their reference—in other words, there will essentially be something on the shelf that they can use. We will need to monitor whether in fact that transport security program is relevant to their needs, is not unduly intrusive and delivers what is intended in relation to enhancing cargo security.

Secondly, the bill extends the validity of the RACA transport security programs to 31 December 2012 unless revised prior to that date or cancelled at an earlier date. This amendment is intended to ease the burden on industry and the department during the transition to the new arrangements. The transition will allow industry to determine which regulatory scheme is the most appropriate for their business, potentially therefore reducing compliance costs and streamlining arrangements for some of the participants.

Thirdly, this bill allows for a legislative instrument to prescribe security training requirements for RACAs and AACAs. This amendment is designed to ensure consistency in training outcomes and in doing so raise the skill level of AACAs and RACAs to increase security across the industry. Again, let me emphasise the importance of not imposing unduly restrictive and time-consuming training components on these very small operators. The reality is that we need to make sure that they know what their job is and they know what to look for, but one would hope that these skill assessments and training programs do not so eat into their time that these often battling businesses are unable to remain profitable because they spend all their time away at training programs. Business feels overloaded at the present time by all of its obligations to undertake training. Training is important, but you can be highly trained and end up with no business if there is not a recognition of the fact that this kind of thing intrudes into the working time of the people who are doing the training, and it therefore may affect their capacity to do their real job.

Allowing for a legislative instrument to prescribe the requirements, which will happen as a result of this legislation, rather than by notice, will increase transparency and allow for the scrutiny of the parliament of the prescribed levels of security training. That of course is the protection for small business if the department should adopt an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach on these matters.

Fourthly and finally, the bill makes two minor technical amendments, one to remove certification provisions to reflect industry practices and the other to clarify terminology by replacing the term 'freight' with the term 'cargo'. I do not think too many people would know the difference, but in reality this is one of the changes that is included in the minor technical amendments in this bill.

The matters before the main committee are relatively minor. It is typical of another tendency of the current government to introduce in almost every session a new amendment bill in relation to aviation security that deals with just trivial matters. I do not know why on earth they cannot get their act together and deal with all these things in a single piece of legislation. But I know that the minister, in his other role as Leader of the House, likes to get up at the end of the year and boast about the number of bills that have been passed by the parliament. This will be another one. It will pass with very little controversy, but why it was not included in last session's aviation security legislation, or the one that we will no doubt get in this session, is beyond me. If the objective is quantity rather than quality I do not think the government has got its priorities right.

The coalition supports the sensible evolution of aviation security and screening measures, provided the new measures are fully explained and overall security measures are not diminished. However, we need to not just concentrate on the regulatory regime and making sure it is right, although that is of course important, but the government must devote the necessary resources to rebuild the quarantine services they have stripped away and make sure that Customs has adequate resources to do the border protection work that it needs to do. We also need to ensure that security flights and surveillance of our oceans, which have been axed in this budget, are restored so that we can be confident that our nation is protected from threats to our security and so that our prized pest-free and disease-free status is maintained wherever possible.

See this speech in context