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

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Aviation security is a high priority for this government and remains under constant review to ensure that the regulatory framework is responsive to changing threats to the Australian aviation industry.

This bill contains a range of amendments that are minor or technical in nature. These amendments are the result of industry suggestions and government administrative experience. There are four significant amendments in this bill.

Firstly, the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 is amended so that regulations can be made to prohibit activities or conduct performed outside a security controlled airport that disrupts or interferes with the operations of a security controlled airport or aircraft. The amendment is consistent with requirements from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, of which Australia is a member. The amendment permits regulations to be made that capture disruptive conduct that takes place outside airport boundaries that directly disrupts airport operations or air services.

There is concern in the aviation industry about the increasing incidence of lasers being used to interfere with aircraft, particularly on approach to and on take-off from airports. The Civil Aviation Act 1988 is amended so that a person who threatens the safety of an aircraft, either by laser or by other means, commits an offence.

Secondly, the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 now contains further powers for Australian Customs officers at airports. My officers have worked with Customs to develop a sensible model that implements one of the recommendations from the aviation security report by Sir John Wheeler. In order to improve aviation security, the amendment utilises Customs officers at parts of the airport where uniformed police are unlikely to routinely visit but which are visited by Customs officers. The intention of the amendment is to complement but not replace the law enforcement role.

The implementation of this recommendation demonstrates the commitment of the government to strengthening aviation security.

Thirdly, is an amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 which will provide, through regulations, for the most senior dignitaries, their spouses and minors to be exempt from aviation security screening. Other dignitaries and VIPs will still be able to apply for aviation security screening exemptions on a case-by-case basis. This change to dignitaries that may be exempt from security screening is limited and reflects a balance between Australia’s international legal obligations and security outcomes.

One amendment includes enhancements to the transport security program regime so that it mirrors maritime security legislation. The sensible enhancements will improve the administration of transport security programs and enhance the existing aviation security regime through:

• the ability of an aviation industry participant to request conclusion of their transport security program;
• administrative arrangements whereby the time taken to process transport security program applications is temporarily suspended for the time taken to provide additional information when requested; and
• more flexible approval arrangements for the lifespan of a transport security program.

Finally, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is amended to enable CASA to introduce a mandatory drug and alcohol regime in the civil aviation industry. This initiative was announced in the 2007-08 budget. The drug and alcohol regime will have two elements: firstly, companies in the industry will be required to have drug and alcohol programs that will be regulated and audited by CASA, will be self-funded, and will involve testing, education and support for their employees.

Secondly, CASA will carry out its own testing program, to test people in the industry, such as private pilots and contractors, who have safety sensitive jobs but who are not covered by a company program, and to satisfy itself that the company programs are effective. To promote compliance, these elements will be supported by a range of potential enforcement options available to CASA.

The drug and alcohol testing regime will foster a safer workplace for civil aviation workers and the public will benefit broadly from a safer aviation sector. It will introduce drug and alcohol testing in the Australian civil aviation industry in line with other civil aviation industries around the world and with other safety sensitive industries in Australia.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Link to 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.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a little confused as to what part of the bill the member is talking about. Could you refer to it?

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

It goes to the aviation industry in Australia and its importance to the Australian economy, and the need to have measures to protect it against the threat of terrorism.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think the bill really refers to that, Member for Batman. I think you are wandering from the bill. Could you come back to the bill.

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

It is drawing a long bow, but the minister understands and appreciates the importance of my comments with respect to these issues. They go to the issue of security in the aviation industry. Because it is an innovative industry looking to the future, it drives economic and social progress. And in terms of the security regime, it is important because it is about the worldwide transportation network, which is essential for global business and tourism. Without a proper security regime, we place global business and tourism at risk. Globally, 25 per cent of all company sales are dependent on air transport and a very efficient security regime. The industry plays a vital role in facilitating economic growth, particularly in developing countries, which have to improve their security regimes. Aviation’s global impact is estimated at $3 billion, equivalent to eight per cent of world gross domestic product, and aviation generates 29 million jobs around the world. Its employment opportunities have actually grown considerably because of the security regime, and the measures that we are putting in place today will create additional jobs in the security industry.

Let us have a further look at the facts when it comes to aviation industry achievements. Whilst we are adding to the cost with the security regime, we have to make savings elsewhere to try and make sure that we are cost efficient—which is also intimately related to this bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I think you will appreciate, representing a regional seat dependent on an efficient and highly safe airline industry. Productivity per worker in the industry is very high—3½ times the average for other sectors. There is a highly efficient use of resources and infrastructure. Air transport uses less than one per cent of the land required for transport in the European Union. Air transport covers the shortest distance between two points—generally, 30 per cent below ground transportation means. For decades now, the airline industry has made efficiency improvements of between one and two per cent each year. This might not seem like much, but eliminating a single minute from every flight around the world saves 4.8 million tonnes of greenhouse emissions, which represents a considerable cost and therefore enables us to partly cover the additional costs of the fight against terrorism, as embodied in the provisions of this bill which is before the Committee for debate this morning.

I think this is a big incentive for industry to continue to make these changes, because, as we all appreciate, emissions cost money. With fuel prices at record highs, it is good business to reduce emissions. More so than any industry in Australia, the transport industry has regard, every day of its operations, for the price of oil internationally. It is therefore no coincidence that the financially successful airlines are also often the greenest, as they invest heavily in new aircraft and technologies to burn fuel more efficiently. New aircraft are 70 per cent more fuel efficient than aircraft 40 years ago and 20 per cent more efficient than aircraft 10 years ago. Carbon dioxide emissions have simultaneously been reduced by 50 per cent, while unburned hydrocarbons and smoke have been cut by 90 per cent. Research programs aim to achieve a further 50 per cent fuel and CO₂ saving and an 80 per cent reduction in nitrogen oxide by 2020—all therefore enabling the industry to cover the additional costs of security and the fight against terrorism.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Batman will please come back to the point. If he does not, I will have to sit him down. He should know that I am determined to do that.

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

I am very conscious of the need to look at this bill in an integrated fashion from the point of view of the importance and future of this industry. These are key issues. That is why, appropriately, in the fight against terrorism, the big aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing have regard, in the new aircraft they are inventing, for the additional costs of security that the industry is confronting. That is why, for example, they are now saying that, to assist industry to cover the cost of these security burdens, modern aircraft fuel efficiency of 3.5 litres per 1,000 passenger kilometres, or 67 passenger miles per US gallon, has to be achieved. Interestingly, in terms of the security operation of Sydney airport, we will see within the next six to eight weeks the arrival of the first A380s and the Boeing 787, which have an efficiency target of less than three litres per 1,000 passenger kilometres. They also know that, with bigger planes, there are more security costs because of the security regime covered by the bill before the House today.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Batman keeps using the word ‘security’ but I would like to get him back to the bill.

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

Security and terrorism go hand in hand.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Batman should understand that I do have the power to sit him down.

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

And I have about 10 minutes to go, too. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you are learning from this contribution from the opposition that the air transport industry is very important to the Australian economy. We treat the bill before the House today very seriously, because you cannot have a viable industry without a proper security regime. I have also sought to deal with some of the climate change challenges that confront the aviation industry, because the cost of security represents an additional cost to the industry. The last thing we need, over and above those costs, which are part and parcel of operating in this industry at the moment, is additional unnecessary taxes and policies to shut down Australian industries and destroy Australian jobs via environmental NGOs and Green political parties which have no regard for Australia’s economic future. I know that I have the full agreement of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services on these comments.

The air transport industry will finance the security changes and the associated infrastructure, airport and air navigation services for user charges and also pay taxes to the national Treasury. It is therefore totally misleading to suggest that aviation enjoys taxation privileges when compared to other transport modes. The contrast is starkly illustrated in Europe, where every rail journey is subsidised and every air journey contributes to net government revenue. The entire aviation industry and the travelling public depend on the safest possible approach to our fight against terrorism. But we have to have regard for the costs and the endeavours of others to impose additional costs on an industry which is, more than ever, aggressively competitive both internationally and domestically.

The changes suggested by the government have the support of the opposition, but I will, on behalf of the opposition, be moving a second reading amendment to highlight our concerns about their failure to properly engage with industry in the development of the bill. In doing so, I urge the government to go out of its way to further consult with industry and expressly with the representatives of the workers, the unions—who are committed to the processes—on the implementation of the changes, such as those to do with drug and alcohol testing. We want to make sure that these changes are implemented with proper consultation. There are also some issues from the Wheeler report which the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for homeland security, will address more fully.

I thank the Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to make a broad-ranging speech on what I regard as a very important industry. It is important not only to Australia but also globally. I ask that he take that message back to his electorate and make sure that they understand the attack on it coming from green NGOs and the European Union. This attack is aimed at crippling the aviation industry in Australia. The European Union is not only about crippling the aviation industry because of a mistaken view about greenhouse emissions. If you go into shops such as Marks and Spencer in Great Britain at the moment, you can see ads suggesting that you should not buy Australian farm produce because there are higher levels of emissions in getting Australian product to market than in getting European product to market. This is a serious debate.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Batman must observe the standing orders. He has been here long enough.

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

As a person who has always been concerned about regional and rural Australia, I suggest to the Deputy Speaker that he have regard to the broader debate rather than the narrow debate we have sought to confine this to. I commend the bill to the House and formally move the second reading amendment. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for creating an exemption mechanism for senior dignitaries rather than using the case by case mechanism already existing for security screening and calls on the government to:

(1)

consult further with the aviation industry and unions and take into account their advice before exercising the power to exempt any senior dignitaries from security screening;

(2)

consult further with the aviation industry and unions and take into account their advice regarding the practical implementation of the proposed drug and alcohol management and testing regime;

(3)

stop making excuses and fix the dangers identified in Sir John Wheeler’s Independent Review of Airport Security and Policing;

(4)

consult fully with stakeholders in the drafting of all relevant regulations subsequent to the passage of the bill; and

(5)

expand the powers of Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), so that it can oversee the police-like activities undertaken by Customs”.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Brisbane. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Batman has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be following the member for Batman in this debate. It is fair to say that the member for Batman has been a fierce advocate for Australian industry and for jobs in Australia and that he understands the transport sector better than any other person in this place. It is not surprising that he would make a contribution along the lines that he just has.

I will be addressing principally the matters contained in the second reading amendment just moved by the member for Batman and seconded by me. Let me refer at the outset to the part of the second reading amendment dealing with the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI. When ACLEI was created, my colleague in the Senate Senator Ludwig made the point that Labor regards it as a very important addition to the framework of Australian government. We also made it clear that we think all bodies that have law enforcement type activities should be subject to the oversight of ACLEI, not just a narrow group of law enforcement agencies. At the time, reference was made to Customs, and it is that point which is picked up in this second reading amendment. As has been noted, Customs officers are now often armed. They undertake quasi law enforcement activities, not just in airports but more broadly. We have armed Customs officers on vessels in waters around Australia. We think it is appropriate that the government review the operation of ACLEI and ensure that those agencies who in the normal course of their activities behave in a law enforcement way are also subject to the oversight of that law enforcement integrity body.

I am particularly concerned at the fact that this government has been slow to act in providing adequate security for the Australian aviation industry in the aftermath of 9-11. After 11 September 2001, it took the government some four years before they finally decided to bring in someone from overseas to address security issues and to do a full review of the situation. The Australian people could be well justified in asking, firstly, why it took four years for a major review like that undertaken by Sir John Wheeler to occur and, secondly, why it was that we needed to get someone from overseas to come and do the job in the first place.

The government have defined, redefined and rearranged the role of the Inspector of Transport Security. Different ministers have ascribed different tasks to it. We know that the position is filled on a temporary basis. Indeed, it is very temporary; the number of days for which that person has been engaged was put on the public record during Senate estimates. Last time I looked—and I have to confess the figures I saw were for 12 months ago—it was somewhere in the order of about a day a week.

The government spent four years with an Inspector of Transport Security who was well qualified to do the task—a person well suited to the job. There is a significant amount of expertise within the Office of Transport Security, yet four years after the 11 September tragedy there were still major shortcomings in Australian aviation security—so much so that, when Sir John Wheeler delivered his report, it was a chronicle of what is wrong, not what is right.

The government have for some time been claiming that all of the recommendations of the Wheeler report have been implemented. There are statements from ministers going back well into last year where they asserted that. Of course, that is not true. In fact, the existence of this legislation demonstrates that it is not true. More importantly, there are major flaws in our security which were highlighted by Sir John Wheeler in his report but which this government, to this day, have failed to deal with. I want to mention a couple of those. They are serious matters, which Labor has commented on inside and outside this parliament on many occasions, and yet they continue to go unaddressed by this government.

The Wheeler report, in the executive summary, on page xiv, said:

... in the current environment, consideration should be given to more comprehensive security control over regional flight passengers when arriving at major airports such as Sydney because of the risk to larger aircraft and facilities when passengers disembark at the apron.

Elsewhere in the report, at page 50, Sir John Wheeler noted:

... the Review noted the vulnerability of current arrangements as they relate to unscreened passengers on some regional regular public transport aircraft arriving at major airports such as Sydney and Melbourne with access to the apron and parked jet aircraft prior to screening.

It could not be clearer. Two years ago, in two separate parts of the report, Sir John Wheeler told the government what they should have known four years earlier: that it is not a good idea to have people who have never been screened, carrying baggage that has never been screened, hopping off in Sydney, Melbourne and other counterterrorism first response airports—at least the major capital city airports—with no effort being made to determine what they have on their bodies or what they have in their cabin luggage. They could have weapons, explosives or a range of things. No effort is made to check what they are carrying if they happen to arrive on a propeller flight from regional Australia unless there happens to have been a jet plane on the tarmac being loaded at the time they were being loaded.

There are something like 900 flights every week that fit that category. There are about 900 flights a week from regional Australia directly to our capital cities, where passengers get off a flight without having been screened. The screening equipment in most cases is actually at the airport; it is just not used for those passengers. It is not a problem of capital infrastructure. It is not a problem of lack of staff trained for the purpose. It exists in those airports. You can go to Dubbo, Wagga Wagga or Ballina and see that there is equipment in those airports to screen passengers, but the government just do not bother doing it. They do not put in place the requirement that it be done.

Sir John Wheeler told the government two years ago that he thinks this is a problem and that the government should have a close look at it, but as we stand here today it is not being addressed. There is no excuse for that. That is poor management. That is poor leadership. That is incompetence. That is dereliction of duty. The simple fact is that, when it comes to so many of these areas of security, as I commented on a bill before the House just a while ago, the government behave as a picture of panic in slow motion. It is all abuzz, it is all important, but nothing happens. It moves at a snail’s pace. I commented once before in relation to a security matter that the government moved like snails on Mogadon in trying to fix the problem—and this is just another example of it. Why, at the end of 2007, are we even having a debate about the need to fix a problem which Sir John Wheeler said two years ago required some attention?

I have a related concern that mystifies people in the industry as well as the Australian public. The government quite sensibly and properly decided to distribute hand-held metal detection wands to a large number of airports around Australia and ensured that there were some people in those airports trained to use them. That is a good thing. That was something we supported. People have been trained to use them. Yet the government put in place a regulation that makes it illegal for airport operators or airlines to use those hand-held wands unless there is a specific instruction from the head of the transport department to do it. So the wands are kept under lock and key in cupboards in the airports while passengers hop on to planes, carrying bags, without anybody even checking them. If someone goes to the cupboard and gets the wand out, they are breaking the law unless they have an instruction from the secretary of the department to do it. We have raised this in the parliament. I asked a question of the former minister in question time about it, and still that problem exists. When I talk to people in the community about this, they just shake their head with disbelief that such a situation could prevail—but it does. I would be interested in the minister’s response in this debate as to why these things occur. Indeed, the minister might like to tell us why at his own home airport in Taree they do not screen.

There are inexplicable holes. Just recently in the budget the government announced a quite significant cost rollout for checked baggage screening at a lot of regional airports. Why would you do that—and I have no problem with the government doing that—and then allow people to hop on a plane leaving the same airport without necessarily checking their luggage? The government seem to have the view that criminals, terrorists and people who want to do nasty things only fly on jet planes. I seem to remember a few years ago that they thought terrorists did not come on planes at all; they thought they came on leaky boats and pretended to be refugees. Now they think the opposite of that: they do not come as refugees on leaky boats; they come on jet planes only. Most people in Australia have a different view about that and it is time those things were properly addressed.

The industry wants these things addressed because the cost to industry, when these systems fail, is substantial. At the end of last year—if memory serves me correctly, it was around the middle of November—there was a flight from Wagga Wagga to Sydney. The plane was one of those propeller aircrafts for which passengers were not screened. The proper process required them to get off at the tarmac in Sydney—mind you, they could have been carrying weapons, explosives or anything else while they were on the tarmac and could have done what they wanted to do—and be marshalled to a section of the airport where they would go through a screening gate and up into the secure part of the terminal. But a mistake was made and they went through the wrong door. It was realised after they had gone through the wrong door that there were all these people who had never been screened roaming around the secure side of the airport. That resulted in that part of the airport having to be completely evacuated and everybody having to go back through the screening process. I know that the cost of that one incident to one airline was in the vicinity of a quarter of a million dollars. There is a cost to industry because of these poor practices, and there is no excuse for the poor practices.

Very shortly Australia will be playing host to APEC. We already are. There are lead-up activities to the APEC forum on now. Sydney will be host to that. Sydney airport is our major airport. These problems I am describing have occurred at Sydney airport and they continue to occur. There is another problem that occurs at Sydney airport, and it was recognised by Sir John Wheeler too. We had an incident last year at Sydney airport where two vehicles went through a boom gate checkpoint when only one was authorised to do so. The travelling public in Sydney airport were very fortunate because the incident was not a terrorist or serious criminal activity; it was an act of road rage. The first vehicle had a pass and authorisation to go through. The second vehicle, in an act of road rage, followed it. Thankfully, it was only road rage, but you get the point: it could have been something more serious.

This was foreseeable. Not only was it foreseeable, it was something Sir John Wheeler identified. Sir John Wheeler’s report specifically makes mention of the problems of vehicles being able to tailgate through perimeter security at airports. At our largest airport, supposedly our most secure airport, the only thing stopping vehicles entering at the key entry points is a single boom gate, and, like most boom gates, it stays up long enough for more than one vehicle to travel through.

It is nothing like we have here at Parliament House. When it came to protecting precious us in this Parliament House and looking at how we were going to restrict vehicle access to the House of Representatives entrance, the Senate entrance and the ministerial entrance, we did not put in a boom gate that allowed multiple vehicles to enter. We put in bollards that ensured that only one vehicle at a time can pass the security checkpoint. But when it comes to the high-profile area of aviation security, target of choice for terrorists for some years, we do not bother imposing the same sort of security, even when the government’s own security expert Sir John Wheeler puts it in his report as one of the problems that needs to be addressed.

There are other examples I could give of issues that Sir John Wheeler raised in his report that needed review that have not been attended to, but time is up for excuses. Time is up for saying, ‘We have implemented all the recommendations’ when clearly you have not. The government have got to take a reality check on this and fess up to the fact that they have not addressed the concerns that Sir John Wheeler identified. Instead of making excuses or hoping that political spin will see them through, the government need to implement the sensible, practical measures that make the aviation industry safer and more secure. Sadly, they have failed to do that for six years since the world aviation industry started to focus at a new, heightened level on these problems.

Having been in the position of shadow minister for homeland security for a few years now, I take no comfort repeating here today the very problems I have raised inside and outside of this parliament on a number of occasions. I get seriously worried about an incident happening and, for the life of me, I do not know why these things are not fixed. With the best of security, with the best of effort and with the best of management none of us can guarantee that an incident will not occur, and we all understand that. What you can do is make sure that the known problems are addressed, particularly when the known problems can be addressed in a manner that does not impose any significant economic or other costs on the industry or people involved.

The examples I have given all fit that category. These are not issues that are hard to address; they just require a bit of focus. They require some decent management and they require some outcomes. It is time that those problems were fixed, and I would welcome a commitment from the minister that these issues will be addressed. I seriously hope that they have been addressed, at least in respect of Sydney airport over the next month or so while APEC is on. The prospect of somebody with weapons or explosives getting off one of those small aircraft from Wagga Wagga—or from one of the many other regional centres that fly aircraft directly into Sydney—and onto the tarmac on the secure side of the airport, with jet aircraft in the same airport and in the same vicinity carrying heads of government and other people, is alarming.

I would like to be assured that at least these problems have been addressed insofar as Sydney is concerned for the period of APEC. But we need to do better than that. We need to fix these problems systemically, and I strongly encourage the minister to do that. Sadly, the administration of some of these things has been wanting. I have raised in the parliament my concerns about the administration of ASICs. We know from testimony again—and this testimony is 12 months old, so I assume the figure is now substantially more—that around 380-odd ASICs that were lost are unaccounted for. The ASIC is the principal means by which people gain entry. There are things that you can do to ameliorate that, but it is not a good thing to have 300 or 400 of your principal security cards for access to an airport—in the order of 15,000 or 16,000 of them had been issued at the time—gone missing. That does not instil confidence in the community that these matters are being properly addressed.

I remember referring in this parliament to the experiences of one of the private pilots who, from memory, was vice-president of the association at the time and who, when he went to get his aviation security identification card here in Canberra, was left alone in an office and told, ‘Here’s the box; find yours.’ So he picked his out and, as he wrote in the aviation journal at the time, he could have picked up anybody’s or any number. That is the high-security card that pilots, ground crews and others use to get access to the secure side of airports.

This has not been world’s best practice aviation security implementation by this government. It has been appalling. There has been a combination of good luck and good management. I should in fairness say that there have been a number of changes made which have improved security and which the opposition supports. I do not want to paint a picture that people have been sitting on their hands; that is not true. A lot of good things have happened, but there have been inexplicable failures and it is time that the government addressed those failures and gave up the pretence of saying, ‘We’ve done all the things Sir John Wheeler said needed to be done,’ because clearly they have not. We should give up the pretence that political spin alone will see them through on this. This is more important than political spin. This is about people’s safety and security. So get it right, get it right now and please tell me that those things that I have raised are going to be addressed, at least in respect of Sydney, some time in the next week, if they have not already been done in recent days.

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

I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on this bill and I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for their attention and input—in particular, in relation to the screening and clearing of dignitaries and their consideration of a proposed new section for interference with the operations of a security controlled airport by persons outside the boundary of that airport. Aviation security is a very high priority for our government, as we continue to say. It is under constant review to ensure that the regulatory framework is responsive to changing threats to the Australian aviation industry. As has been highlighted by the contributions from the other side, we do maintain the arrangements under constant review. We are responding to the recommendations that have been outlined in the Wheeler review. To date we have spent about $886 million implementing the Wheeler recommendations. Implementation of some aspects of the Wheeler review is going to take some time. It is not just a matter of making a decision, spending the money and then they are implemented on that day. There are issues where agencies are improving their cooperation and improving the sharing of intelligence which will take time to achieve. But certainly we are absolutely focused on implementing those Wheeler review recommendations.

The other aspect that the shadow minister reflected on is the operation of the Office of Transport Security and the inspector in that position. Of course, we want to respond to circumstances to ensure that there are not systemic failings in the system. There are always going to be one-off issues, and the shadow minister referenced one which answered his question with regard to regional carriers coming into Sydney. There was another one in Melbourne yesterday morning where, inadvertently, a contractor in the airport came back through an entry point to hand some keys back to someone but stayed air side, causing a perceived security breach. So the whole place was put on alert to screen everybody on that side in the secure area. Those circumstances will occur from time to time. We need to be prepared to respond to them in that manner, as in Melbourne yesterday and as occurs in Sydney where people arriving from an unscreened circumstance at a regional airport on a turboprop RPT operation are marshalled at the steps of the aircraft. They are accompanied by secure persons from there on a bus into an area that is outside the secure area in the airport.

The shadow minister gave the example of a busload of passengers being delivered through the wrong door. Obviously, the response to that is that everybody in the secure area must be rescreened. Those circumstances may arise from time to time, no matter how much effort is put in. But certainly the intention is that people on regional RPTs who are coming into airports from unscreened regional airports go into an unscreened area. They are not allowed to go into the screened secure area at Sydney airport; therefore, they are not near any of those higher target operations of the jet passenger services.

These amendments are about the continuing job of improving and focusing on our aviation transport security. Firstly, of the four amendments, the Aviation Transport Security Act is amended so that regulations can be made to prohibit activities or conduct taking place outside airport boundaries which disrupt or interfere with the operations of a security controlled airport—in particular, shining a laser device through the airport fence at an aircraft. Examples of this conduct have occurred. It is a highly dangerous act; it is a very irresponsible act. I appreciate the comment made by the member for Batman, who said that we do not want to highlight this in the broader community—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Lyne willing to give way?

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

Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By way of supporting what the member for Batman said, can the minister advise me how long the jail term is for people who do these kinds of acts, such as shining lasers into the cockpits of aircraft, or what kinds of measures already exist—Wheeler or not—even in a general way?

Mark Vaile (Lyne, National Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to 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.