Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015. As previous speakers have acknowledged, there are very genuine reasons for this legislation. The events concerning the World Trade Centre, as we know very well, prompted the US to require this legislation. It was the 9/11 act that brought about this situation where 100 per cent of all cargo that is being transported on passenger aircraft departing or coming in to US airports is screened. The world was horrified when it saw the events of 9/11. Since then, we have seen continuing terrorist activity. As members before me have pointed out very eloquently, none of us particularly likes the additional red tape or any of the cost that goes with this type of legislation, but it is definitely necessary.

There has been a tranche of legislation whereby the government has taken measures in relation to the ongoing security threats that we as a nation and other parts of the world now face. It is very sobering. When I looked at this legislation and at the events of the last nine days in France and Europe, I saw the ongoing terrorist threat. I even consider the MH370 as one such incident. As we know, it was on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. We are yet to find out exactly what happened to that aircraft. It may or may not have been this type of incident; but, as yet, we do not know. Western Australia has been central in assisting with that search. Australia is doing all it possibly can there.

Public safety, as well as the cargo itself, is something that we cannot afford to take lightly. Given events of recent times right around the world, I do not think there is anyone who takes the issue of safety, particularly air safety and air cargo safety, lightly. It is on that basis that the government has introduced this bill. When we talk about our trade opportunities, in no way do we want to compromise the opportunities of our growers, producers and manufacturers—all of those who are seeking to trade right around the world—through not only the three free trade agreements but also the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The other issue that was raised which I think people do not understand terribly well is that so much of the cargo that exits goes out in the belly of a passenger aircraft. That is another reason why the level of security as required in this bill is so important. A recent re-evaluation of Australia's air cargo security arrangements determined that they do not meet the standards that the US requires. After 9/11 they were the requirements placed by the US. By law all airlines transporting cargo on passenger flights are required to be examined—100 per cent of the cargo, and rightly so. We have seen far too many incidents to take this issue lightly. Others members have pointed out that as members of parliament we travel a lot, as do so many of the public. So, not only those who send out cargo will be affected by delays and the cost of additional red tape. Members of the public will also become extremely frustrated. As we know, when people are at an airport , particularly if they are running a little bit late and their flight is not far off from leaving, they find it very difficult when they are selected to be screened by the Customs officials. This is the level of security that is now required in the world in which we live, and that in part underpins the need for this legislation.

We have to make sure that, in the future, all Australian air cargo meets the security arrangements and requirements for air cargo exports to the United States. This means that each individual box—a carton or any form of container—or any item has to be examined by technology. We have seen terrorists be particularly creative. When I was in Afghanistan in 2011, I saw some of the very creative improvised explosive devices that were being used there. They have an extremely creative capacity that we should not underestimate. We take the security of people and cargo very seriously, as we should. These are the very reasons why each of the containers has to be screened by technology or physically inspected before it is loaded onto a United States bound aircraft. This legislation supports our effort to meet the US security requirements. When I look at what is produced out of the south-west and goes not only interstate but around the world, I do not want to see any of those opportunities lost to producers or manufacturers in my part of the world or elsewhere in Australia.

There is a partnership that the government has with industry to implement these new security requirements. It will allow exporters to choose what is the most effective method for their particular businesses, and it will be different from business to business. Whether it is an approved examination away from the airport—but it will have to be approved—an approved freight-forwarding business or the establishment of a known consignor scheme that the export businesses can join, we need to make this as efficient as we can for the exporting businesses whilst meeting the requirements of US security. There are a number of businesses examining cargo at a piece-by-piece level with X-ray before it gets to the airport cargo terminal. Therefore, there is no need for screening at the airport itself.

The second part supported by sections in the amending legislation creates the legal authority for the establishment of the new known consignor scheme. Continuing to work with industry to try to limit the amount of costs, inconvenience and red tape while still meeting those security requirements is part of what we need to do to establish these particular protocols. The known consignor scheme is an internationally recognised method of meeting our air safety cargo requirements from the early part of the supply chain through to the ultimate loading onto an aircraft. I think we are all aware of the need for that level of security and transparency in the process and of the need to be accountable all the way along that particular chain. The scheme provides an alternative means of securing air cargo from unlawful interference, compared to examination using X-ray or other technologies. As I said earlier, there are very creative efforts in this space, so the need for very sound processes and very good technology is never more relevant than right now.

I had a look on the US site and I saw that their national strategy is for a global supply chain of security. Their two goals are to promote the efficient and secure movement of goods, which is what we are doing with this bill, and to foster a global supply chain system that is prepared for and can withstand evolving threats and hazards and can rapidly recover from any disruption. I think all of us in this place understand the great threat that the US faces. It is a primary target. Nothing made that more obvious to the world than 9/11, and wherever the US is around the world—whether it is an embassy, for instance, or an office—you will see a level of security that is possibly not replicated by other nations. The threat and risk to the US is that which we saw with 9/11. So, for our producers and manufacturers to continue to be able to export, we need the level of security provided by this particular bill. This is to make sure that the $4.8 billion worth of air freight that we export to the US can continue into the future.

In recognition of our national cargo security program, we have secured an agreement with the United States to extend that export to July 2017. This means simply that Australian cargo to the United States can continue without any disruption whilst transitioning to the new arrangements, and this is really important. We do not in any way want to interrupt businesses' existing arrangements, our existing export channels and the produce that is going out—the products, manufactured products and a whole raft of different products that are being exported to the US. There are many companies that are relying on a smooth transition, and the intention is that we certainly give them that opportunity throughout this process. The bill ensures that our air cargo security arrangements are consistent with the international standards that I spoke about earlier under the Chicago Convention. The strategy not only meets the requirements of the US; it meets any anticipated requirements of our trading partners. Given that we have concluded three free trade agreements, these will be particularly relevant and important ahead.

If the measures are not implemented, industry will have no choice about how to meet the new security requirements set out by the United States, as the Transportation Security Administration has made it very clear that it will not accept any air cargo exports unless all of it is screened at a piece-by-piece level. I do not think there is anyone who could question this, and I do not think any of us who get on aircraft at any time would have any issue with this level of screening and security. Even though MH17 was a different set of circumstances, and different, perhaps, from MH370, every time we see an incident like this—and we have seen too many of them—because we live in such a global environment, it is almost inevitable that there will be people from all over the world on that flight, and there is often an Australian as well. Irrespective of where people come from, we take their security very seriously, and all of us have noticed a greater expectation of government in regard to national security issues in recent times, not just in these last two weeks but in the whole period of a range of different terrorist attacks and threats.

I am very pleased to support this legislation. I commend the work of the minister and his people in this space. I recognise the additional issues facing business and industry in this space. We are working very hard to ensure that the cost and red tape are kept to a minimum whilst meeting all of the requirements that are needed to meet the export and security requirements of the United States. I commend the bill to be House.

See this speech in context