Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. Over the last few days, parliament has had a strong united voice in its resolve to help the victims of the Victorian bushfire tragedy. It is heartening that, whilst we can disagree passionately in this place on some subjects, on issues of national emergency and crisis we can stand together as one. There is always more that unites us than divides us.

September 11 2001 was one of these occasions for the American people—2,974 people died when terrorists evaded security and turned passenger jets into flying bombs, destroying the twin towers in New York City. The shockwaves reverberated around the world. One of the consequences of this tragedy was the marked tightening of security at airports in America and across the globe. Australia also played its part.

In the years following 9-11, the Australian government has invested $1.2 billion in enhanced aviation security. This has included the expansion of screening for passengers and checked-in baggage, the improvement of security in the air cargo industry and Air Security Officer Program, which placed sky marshals on select domestic and international flights. It is important that improvements to physical security are complemented by legislative improvements to processes surrounding aviation security. This is what this bill provides for.

I have an active interest in this bill, given that the fourth largest airport in the country, Perth Airport, is located in the north-eastern part of my electorate. Perth’s airport holds a special significance for the people of Perth. Being the most isolated capital city in the world, air travel represents the only realistic form of transport for those wishing to travel outside WA.

Recent figures from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics suggest that 92 per cent of journeys between Perth and the east are made through Perth Airport. In recent years, passengers’ use of the airport has increased by dramatic and unforeseen quantities. In the last five years, the number of domestic passenger movements at Perth Airport has increased 82 per cent—13.6 per cent in the last financial year. International passenger numbers have also exploded, increasing by 13.1 per cent in the last financial year.

There are several reasons for this. All members will be aware of the mining boom that has been the engine of the state’s, and indeed the nation’s, economic growth over the past decade. Mining companies have utilised Perth as a labour source, establishing fly-in fly-out traffic. Testament to this are the 2,223 people employed in the mining sector at the last census in my suburban electorate of Swan. The number of people using the airport for work related purposes has therefore increased across Perth.

Another result of the mining boom has been to create a more affluent WA, and a more affluent population has enjoyed more time travelling. The unprecedented increase in passenger traffic through the airport has put infrastructure under significant pressure. Despite this, Perth Airport has played its part in upgrading security. It has completed a $6.2 million baggage-screening system in terminal 3 for all check-in baggage on domestic flights in order to meet government regulations. However, we must continue to be vigilant and we must do more, as Australia continues to be a terrorist target.

There are measures which we should be taking to improve security, and this bill goes some way to achieving this. The legislation allows for amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. The legislative amendment to the 2004 act allows the secretary of the department to collect additional security information. Knowledge is power, and it is right and proper that the department has this additional security information so that the officials can make informed decisions quickly in the interests of safety and security. We do, however, have a responsibility to ensure that this does not create unnecessary costs for the industry. This bill has no financial impact on government expenditure; therefore, presumably, the full cost will have to be absorbed by the industry. The government must ensure that this is treated sensibly, especially given the current economic climate.

The legislative amendment to the 2004 act provides for the secretary to delegate any or all of his or her functions to another agency head or equivalent, whose responsibilities include functions relating to national security. In the event of an emergency such delegation may, depending upon the scale of the crisis, be imperative. An effective response may depend upon the secretary appointing another senior figure in a better position to devote more time to a specific response issue. It avoids the specific lack of decision-making capacity.

The legislative amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 provides for the copying and disclosure of aircraft cockpit voice recorder, CVR, information for the purpose of testing its functioning and reliability. This was a result of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s investigation into the Lockhart River air crash of 2005, where a CVR was found to be faulty and no audio recovered from the recorder could be confirmed as having been recorded during the flight. All 15 passengers on board were killed in that tragedy. At present there are strict confidentiality requirements to ensure the continued availability of CVR information for no blame accident and incident investigations under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. This bill will allow for the copying and disclosure of the cockpit voice recorder information, which will enable faults to be discovered and dealt with more easily.

Finally, amendments to the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 carry my support. The minor amendments remove the one-year time limit for prosecutions relating to the failure to report on immediately reportable matters—IRMs. That is sensible, given that it can take years for unreported incidents to be discovered. I am confident that these legislative security measures will be effective in Western Australia. My immediate concern for the future is ensuring that the government and Perth Airport complement these initiatives by continuing to improve physical security infrastructure.

I was disappointed to read in the Australian newspaper this morning that the number of armed air marshals protecting Australian aircraft has been cut by almost one-third due to budgetary cutbacks. The article suggests that there will be fewer than 100 specially trained air marshals left. The $55 million a year program commenced in December 2001 as an important component of physical security. I urge the government to retain this program fully. I would ask: has the government received advice from national security agencies that it is safe to make these cuts?

The upcoming $1 billion development project at Perth Airport provides a good opportunity to ensure Perth Airport has world-class security arrangements. The $1 billion redevelopment project involves moving the domestic terminal to the international terminal site and creating Terminal WA for intrastate flights, which have been a significant cause of the increase in passenger usage. Terminal WA, under construction now, is the first phase of the project and is set to be completed by late 2010. It will be a flexible terminal able to respond to the short-term contracts preferred by the mining sector. The project is expected to reduce the number of passengers at the domestic terminal by 1.2 million per year, especially during the 5 am to 7.30 am peak period. This will ease the current pressure on infrastructure at the domestic terminal, which any recent visitor to the terminal will have experienced. A draft major development plan for Terminal WA has been released, and I can assure the House that I will be seeking assurances in my submission that security arrangements at the new terminal will be world-class.

I understand that the project to build Terminal WA will also involve a review of the airport’s tributary roads. Therefore I will also in my submission urge the airport to include in its plan an upgrade to the Great Eastern Highway, as promised by both political parties at the last election. Members will recall that I have spoken about the need for an upgrade of this road in the past. Finally, in addition to security and roads, I will in my submission urge the airport to properly inform and consult with the local community that will be affected by changes in noise pollution resulting from the changes in the airport location. I have played a role on the Perth Airport Noise Management Consultative Committee since being elected as the federal member for Swan.

In conclusion, these legislative security amendments are, combined with physical security infrastructure improvements, an important part of Australia’s response to the threat of terrorism. I will be working with the airport to see that their impressive expansion over the coming years includes such measures, and I would urge the government to also continue to invest in this area.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. Forty-nine million passengers each year use Australian domestic airlines and the numbers continue to rise. Aviation travel has become an essential service for commuters and for Australia’s economy. Since 1943, when statistics began to be collated, there have been over 14,000 aircraft incidents recorded around the world. Of those, over 11,000 were accidents. Criminal offences, sabotage, terrorism and other occurrences accounted for around 3,000 incidents. As a proportion of the total number of flights that have taken place over that period of time, those figures represent a very small percentage, but in raw numbers the figures are substantial.

More concerning is that aircraft have all too often become targets for terrorists. I was interested to hear only this morning the member for Brisbane’s presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security. The matters that he raised certainly confirm that terrorist activities are still out there and that we ought to be on alert at all times because of that. I will come to that later in my submission today.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, under standing order 66A, I ask the honourable member: is he prepared to give way so that I can make an intervention in this debate?

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Makin prepared to give way?

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do that.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to what the honourable member said about the importance of airport security. I draw his attention to the article in the Australian today about air marshal numbers being cut. I would like his view on whether the cutting in the number of air marshals is going to assist aircraft security.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take on board the question that has just been put to me. I have not read that report so, at this stage, I cannot give a specific response to it. However, I am certainly concerned about airport security. On that basis I will continue my remarks on this bill. When anyone boards an aircraft they place their complete trust in the airline and aircraft crew. If problems arise, passengers are completely reliant on the safety procedures that have been put in place by the airline industry and by the government. It has become evident that those procedures, other safety systems and precautionary measures in place must be strengthened.

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 is important because it improves aviation safety on two fronts. Firstly, it strengthens Australia’s national security procedures in respect of the aviation industry, with particular reference to antiterrorist arrangements. Secondly, the legislation improves general aviation safety by requiring airline operators to report incidents which may identify a possible safety issue relating to the aircraft. Importantly, the legislation doubles the penalty for failing to report an immediately reportable matter from six months to 12 months imprisonment. The significance of that amendment is that it will immediately remove the current statutory 12-month limitation period for prosecuting that offence, thereby closing a loophole that could presently prevent a prosecution.

It was that loophole that prevented any prosecution with respect to the Lockhart River airline accident in 2005, in which all 15 people on board a Transair Metroliner died. An Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation showed that Transair had failed to report 25 safety incidents in the two years leading up to the crash. Seven were serious matters, such as the cabin pressurisation warning. The likelihood of prosecution will, without question, raise the compliance level of aircraft operators within the airline industry. This is an important change in the legislation. The increase in the imprisonment period from six to 12 months, I believe, will make a lot of difference in ensuring that the compliance that we all expect and believe ought to be out there is actually carried out by those who operate aircraft. The additional amendment which arose from the Lockhart River investigation relates to amending part IIIB of the Civil Aviation Act to allow the copying and disclosure of cockpit voice recorder information for cockpit voice recorder testing and maintenance.

Because of the global financial crisis, it is inevitable that the airline industry will also be financially affected and will look to cut costs. We saw that even before the global financial crisis was exposed last year, with aircraft maintenance standards being questioned. In fact, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority released a press release on 1 September last year alluding to concerns that they had in respect of some maintenance procedures. At the time, I wrote to the authority to ask them what procedures and processes they had in place. I thank them for the response that they sent me, which certainly assured me that they had all of the appropriate procedures available to them in place at the time. The amendments in this bill relating to both the reporting requirements and the cockpit voice recorder information will ensure a greater level of accountability on the part of aircraft operators and thereby lead to an increased level of confidence in the industry by passengers. Maintenance standards need to be upheld, and the ability of authorities to ensure that maintenance standards are being upheld will be greatly enhanced by this provision.

I now turn to the issue of aviation safety and security procedures for airports and aircraft. The events of 11 September 2001 in the US have forever changed aviation security arrangements around the world. Regrettably, but by necessity, they have caused additional inconvenience to the majority of travellers, who are law abiding. What the security arrangements have similarly brought is considerable peace of mind to airline passengers. Again, it has become clear that, as a result of changing circumstances, the existing security arrangements should be strengthened, and that is what these amendments do. Firstly, the limited scope under which the secretary can collect security compliance information needs to be expanded. The kind of information that may be requested by the secretary will be prescribed by regulation. Secondly, the secretary needs to be able to—and, under these amendments, will be able to—delegate his powers and functions under the Aviation Transport Security Act to certain employees within the department. Why this was never allowed in the act surprises me. It seems to be a common-sense provision.

Regrettably, we live in times when terrorist actions are all too frequent. Terrorist acts have already cost the lives of thousands of innocent people, including two people who are personally known to me; one being Andrew Knox, who was in the twin towers building when it was attacked on 11 September 2001, and the other being Angela Golotta, who was killed in the Bali bombings of 2002. Both were young people with promising futures ahead of them, both were completely innocent victims of terrorist acts and both died horrific deaths. I have spoken to the family members of both of those people on occasion and, whilst I certainly do not want to go over the events of the time, I can say that neither of the two families have ever recovered from their deaths. It is one thing, perhaps, to lose your life in what we might consider normal circumstances, but it is another to lose your life in horrific circumstances where you truly are an innocent victim of the circumstance.

We will never be able to absolutely guarantee the safety of airline passengers, regardless of what measures are implemented. There are many other things that perhaps need to be done and should be done and I am sure, in time, as they emerge, they will be done. Having been the mayor of the city in which the Parafield Airport is located, I am aware of two separate incidents which could have ended up in absolute disaster. In one, one of the aircraft was sabotaged. Fortunately it was not able to get off the ground because of the extent of the sabotage. In another, the aircraft in fact did crash after having left the ground. It landed on a main road at a busy time of the day. For some miraculous reason, it did not hit a car or anyone else who was on the road. Both of those events could have been prevented, and I have to say that the airport authorities in that location immediately took steps to try to ensure that such events would not occur again or at least that it was far more difficult for them to occur again. We can never absolutely guarantee safety, but, where we are aware that there are perhaps deficiencies in the processes and the precautions that we have taken, we have an obligation in the interests of the community that we represent to do something about it. This amendment bill does that, and for that reason I commend it to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to take the opportunity today to speak on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 because this is an area in which I have long held an interest. Shortly after I graduated from the Australian Federal Police College at Weston Creek, as it was in those days, I undertook my probationary training in Sydney. Amongst a range of very interesting rotations, I spent some time at Sydney Airport, working primarily at the international airport and in the ports watch section. That was in plain clothes and armed. From that time in 1986 and 1987, I developed a very good knowledge of the workings of the airport. I knew where all the entry points and the security points were. I drove on the tarmac and walked out underneath aircraft at various times. I boarded international flights in response to passenger immigration alerts where Family Court rulings prohibited children being taken overseas. I therefore had a very good knowledge of the shortcomings and the problems of the time.

Appropriately, airport security has moved on, and the Australian Federal Police has substantially moved on. In the AFP, we were limited in so many ways.

In budget, premises, equipment and training, and certainly by reputation, the AFP is a completely different organisation now than it was then. In my opinion, the previous government turned the AFP around. The Howard government believed in the need for the Australian Federal Police and the capabilities that were required and are now possessed. I believe that the federal government before the Howard government did not have the imagination to do what needed to be done, yet we now have the effective and highly professional crime-fighting and security organisation that exists today. I hope that its work is never again undermined by lack of government will, as it was when I served.

Of course, any discussion on aviation security cannot be advanced without putting the AFP in the debate. However, this bill is about aviation security information, the relationship with aviation industry participants and the ability to delegate powers and functions. This bill will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

I will begin with comments regarding the amendment of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, and I would like to look back to 2005 to clearly put the issue of aviation security in the right perspective. That perspective is that the hard work was done years ago and that this bill is finetuning in comparison. Members would be aware of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 that came about to address the risks and threats in aviation security following September 11. Beyond the good work of that act, there was also the Wheeler review and the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006. That bill primarily targets security and clearance processes for domestic and international cargo before it is taken on board an aircraft and gives the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services approval authority for alterations to an existing transport security program.

Members would also recall that it was in June 2005 that the then government asked Sir John Wheeler, the former security minister for Northern Ireland, to conduct a review of Australia’s airport security. Wheeler had already conducted a similar review in the UK. The Howard government directed Wheeler and a small team to examine the threat from serious and organised crime at airports, the integration of ground based security and law enforcement arrangements and the overall capacity of the existing security systems. The review commenced in June and was presented in September 2005. As directed, the report focused on responses to the threat of terrorism and clearly related serious crime threats at airports. It identified coordination deficiencies across all levels of governments and agencies and a related lack of security awareness amongst airport workers. Policing at major airports in Australia was found to be often inadequate. Demarcation and dysfunction, in general, marred the security systems. It was little wonder that the review found problems of bureaucratic turf protection and unresolved Commonwealth-state conflicts over resources. Changes were needed, with an emphasis on intelligence sharing, addressing the potential overlap between terrorism and crime and, therefore, the clear need for staff at airports to be vetted.

Key among the recommendations was that there should be a permanent police presence at the major airports, under a single airport police commander and, not surprisingly, there were other recommendations related to an increase in CCTV coverage, coordination of CCTV coverage of all international airports and a tightening up of the aviation security identification card system. It was from the Wheeler review that the deficiency in cargo screening was highlighted, where 20 per cent of cargo could be loaded without being screened. The Wheeler review described the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 as providing a ‘solid basis for security regulation at airports and associated activities’. However, it was clear that a substantial review of the existing legislation and regulations was necessary. The review recommended that collaboration between the states and territories would enable a more effective system that would help in the flow of intelligence and deal with the threats of both organised crime and terrorism and the potential overlaps between them.

Therefore, it would seem that, while the post 9-11 changes served Australia well, more was needed. The Howard government accepted, in principle, the recommendations made by the Wheeler view and immediately announced additional expenditure of almost $200 million to further tighten security at Australia’s 11 major airports. It was shortly after that announcement that Minister Truss introduced the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006. The bill addressed regulatory arrangements that would apply when a security controlled airport conducted special events or, as they are described in schedule 1, ‘out of the ordinary’ events, such as major governmental conferences like APEC or a visit from the Pope. In addition, the bill addressed the better handling of domestic and international cargo prior to loading. Schedule 2 of that legislation was designed to increase the number of cargo operators controlled by the regulations and increase the screening of cargo to 100 per cent.

It is not, and it has not been, my intention to cast doubt on the validity of the amendments in the bill before the House. I do believe that it is valuable for the secretary to be able to collect information that currently falls outside the scope of security compliance information. As the explanatory memorandum refers to, such additional information will enable assessments to be made as to what new security measures are required or what existing security measures need to be modified to address threats to the security of aviation. An assessment of the incidence and statistics in general of security operations such as screening would provide a very useful tool from a process and intelligence perspective.

I am also particularly happy about proposed new section 112, which would require a person to give aviation security information. The reason of self-incrimination could not excuse them from providing that information. That is a good power to be applied when approaching the need to continuously improve aviation security, but it should not be applied when the need to proceed with a criminal prosecution is evident. I am confident that the professional and dedicated agencies involved will balance these priorities carefully. I also agree that the secretary must be able to delegate powers under the ATSA to a head of another agency that is responsible for national security matters. I would also be interested in hearing which agencies would receive such a delegation of powers and when that would occur.

Although the secretary currently has the power of delegation to an SES level officer within the department, proposed subsection 127(1) will allow delegation to other agencies with national security responsibilities, and I support this change. The explanatory memorandum mentions the secretary’s powers in the ATSA under section 74D, which allows the secretary to issue an incident control directive to require an aircraft to undertake a particular action. This enables the secretary to determine whether the aircraft is under the control of its authorised crew or has been seized. The delegation of this power beyond the department would speed up the flow of information and enable critical decisions to be made more quickly. Beyond amendments of the Aviation Transport Security Act, the Civil Aviation Act 1988 would also be amended by this legislation. I support the changes that would insert provisions into the act allowing aircraft cockpit voice recorders to be copied and disclosed.

Finally, this bill will amend the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to strengthen the powers of the ATSB, increase penalties and enable the ATSB to prosecute the failure to report an aviation incident up to six years after the commission of the offence, extending the current 12-month limit, due to the time it can sometimes take for some offences to be brought to light. As I have previously stated, I have a long-term interest in aviation security. I also have a very keen appreciation of what needed to be done and what was done in the past. I therefore pay tribute in this forum to the efforts of the Howard government in pushing aviation security in this country forward.

I also acknowledge the benefits that this bill will bring, but the threat to the Australian Federal Police posed by the upcoming audit worries me. The Howard government greatly advanced the interest of national security by properly resourcing the AFP and other agencies. The Rudd government should not, with a funding cut, turn the clock back on front-line policing and the range of critical tasks that the AFP now can accomplish. Clearly an example of this is today’s revelation in the Australian that, from a high point of 170 air security officers under the Howard government in 2006, under the Rudd government there are now fewer than 100. The question is: is the threat any less clear now? Not at all. But the Rudd government’s record with AFP cutbacks is becoming clearer, and I worry for the future.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to be here today to participate in this very important debate. I will get to the detail of the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 in a minute. The context is that it shows just how much attention we give to the detail of our aviation industry. In Australia we are constantly trying to improve and refine our aviation industry. We are constantly trying to make it safer. We are constantly trying to make it more efficient. We are vigilant about improving regulation, governance arrangements and the necessary security protocols within this industry—and we obviously should be. The risk in this industry can be very high. If we sit back and look at the bill in context for a moment, it shows a little about the approach that this government takes to aviation. It says we must have a very healthy attitude that will lead to continuous betterment of this industry and the security measures associated with it.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, pursuant to standing order 66A, I ask whether the honourable member would be prepared to give way so I can make an intervention in accordance with the standing orders.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member for Corangamite allow a question?

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not. We are constantly searching for excellence in running this industry, and that is certainly what this government is all about.

I want to put on record that I am proud of the Australian aviation industry’s record, particularly its record on safety, and I would like to make some detailed observations about the history of aviation, particularly over the last decade. We have seen very substantial risks and loss of life within the aviation industry. My mind turns to September 11, when we lost many lives in the United States and many Australians, of course, as a consequence. We have seen, in more recent times, planes having to land in watercourses in the United States. We have also seen, within the Australian context, threats and risks in Darwin.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority plays a very significant and important role in ensuring that we have extremely safe skies. In Australia, with our civil aviation authorities and government intervention, we see very strong regulatory arrangements that have been in place for a very significant period of time. We will continue to strive to ensure that we have extremely safe skies.

In the Australian context, we have thousands and thousands of people, each and every week, flying from one destination to another, whether it be for holidays, for commerce or to catch up with family and friends. This government will do absolutely everything that we can to ensure that the statutes and the regulations are appropriately in place to protect those that use our aviation industries, and I will continue to support every effort to ensure that we do that.

In my own backyard we have Avalon Airport, which is in increasingly playing a very important role in domestic tourism. The community that I represent, a community that has substantial tourism assets, is increasingly keen to see Avalon play a role in international tourism. Of course, that potentially brings a whole raft of new and difficult challenges that we will need to manage in accordance with all of the statutes that are in place and should be in place. When you open up a new airport, when you bring new people from different parts of the world to any airport via an airline, very clearly there are substantial risks that must be managed to ensure the safety of the airline public. When I reflect on the efforts that this government has made in the last 12 months, I think some very substantial and worthy debates have taken place in this parliament around some of the legislative arrangements that we have chosen to put in place.

This bill contains a number of enhancements to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988. These arrangements, I believe, will provide for a safer public and a safer opportunity to use our airports and our airlines and will ensure the safety of the flying public. This government will keep striving, along with our partners in the airline industry and all of the authorities that play a very important role in protecting the wellbeing of the Australian flying public. All our partners—whether it be the aviation transport authority, CASA, state police or the Australian Federal Police—continue to make a valuable contribution to the safety of our flying public.

In conclusion, I would like to thank those who have played a very significant role within the aviation authority, the Federal Police, Customs and other valued partners and who continue to ensure that we do have, I think, a very proud record of having one of the safest sets of arrangements that protect our flying public within Australia. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise certainly not to oppose the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008being aware of the Main Committee’s non-contentious process—but to raise several concerns that I want to put on the record for consideration by those involved in government and in aviation security at a later date, particularly when they put the various regulations together. Firstly, there is the obvious point regarding the legislation passing through this place without the details of the regulations being attached. In so many ways this legislation, for me, flies or fails—pardon the pun—in regard to the detail of the regulations that should be attached or available as part of this process. The questions are incredibly broad regarding the issue of the use and collection of information and the expanded role that this legislation gives, yet the answer that is provided in any of the resources available to a private member in this place is that the regulations will define that.

It makes it very hard for a local member to support this legislation if we are, once again, having to take government on good faith in the collection of what we can only assume is information for security and intelligence purposes. I would hope that we have learnt some lessons in the last decade in taking government on good faith and on the encroaching paternalism of the state in the role that it sees itself playing in protecting society. I would have hoped that we have learnt the lesson not just from the last 10 years but from the history of man and democratic society that says open democracy and the principles of liberty and freedom are best defended when societies are as transparent and therefore as accountable as can be. Faith in people, rather than faith in governments, is surely the future in protecting communities such as ours. So it makes it very difficult for me to support this legislation when we are being told through the documents that the regulations will tell all and that the legislation should therefore be taken on good faith. I have a fundamental problem with that. I will not oppose the bill today, but I place a marker that hopefully we do not see that again. I do hope—with the good faith of all the 150 members representing the people here—that the regulations, with the powers we are giving to those writing the regulations, are written with the interests of people in mind at the same time as the various security and intelligence interests.

The second point I would like to make flows on from that. It is, I guess, that I hope this chamber has learnt the lesson in regards to the collection of intelligence. I was just sent in a timely way a document which was published in late 2008 by Macquarie University in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism by a friend of mine who is the executive officer of the regional development board on the mid-North Coast. I want to read for the record the concluding three paragraphs from his essay on intelligence and intelligence gathering. They are relevant to the point I just made and should be relevant to the consideration of the drafting of the regulations and to the future direction from government as to how government deals with the vexed questions that are being put before it by the attacks, in what are fundamentally peaceful times of those with religious or cultural barrows to push, I would like to read. the final three paragraphs because I think that they are worthy of reflection. They say:

Since September 11 the threat of terrorism has prompted fundamental changes to national priorities and an unprecedented concentration of authority. “Secret” intelligence has been used by governments as the justification for policies and actions that shift the balance between the rights of the state and the individual, at the same time avoiding intensive public scrutiny of decision-making processes.

It is apparent that the threat of terrorism has engendered a range of significant negative changes in Australian society. Core democratic principles and institutions have been compromised and human and civil rights diminished. National priorities have been transformed, reducing an already inadequate level of funding support for the most disadvantaged in our community (poor/young/sick/aged/indigenous). The relationship between the community and its elected representatives has changed, with the emergence of a new and powerful paternalism under the guise of national leadership in a time of crisis.

…            …            …

Of great concern is the possibility that community anxiety about “foreigners”has been exploited for partisan political purposes to polarise society and to alienate Australian Muslims. Ironically this has the potential to create the conditions that will increase the future prospects of terrorism in Australia. Ignorance and prejudice threaten to damage the fabric of Australia’s multicultural society through the radicalisation of sections of our own community. Should a terrorist incident occur in Australia in the future the inevitable response will fundamentally change the nature of Australian society.

A government committed to maintaining a peaceful, just and humane society will always act to ensure that all Australians, no matter their origin, religion, race or colour, are respected as equals and enjoy fair access to the opportunities that this unique country offers.

I read that into the record to be reflected on when writing the regulations. I do acknowledge that there are privacy laws attached to the collection of private information here, but I think there is a large section of the community that want to see an investment in people and the liberties, freedoms and transparency that come with an open democratic process rather than continued encroachment by increasing government powers and paternalism.

I therefore do not oppose the legislation. It certainly does, in summary, concern me that we are being asked to support legislation before we have seen the who, the what, the where, the why and the how of the regulations and the details in them. I hope that consideration is given to those broader founding principles of an open society rather than the continued encroachment of government control and authority.

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

in reply—I thank members, including the member for Lyne, for their comments in contribution to the debate on this bill. The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 makes four key amendments to aviation safety and security legislation.

One amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 will expand the information collection and delegation powers of the secretary of my department. The sort of information to be collected may include information relating to the screening of people, vehicles, goods or cargo. The other amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 will improve the robustness and flexibility of the aviation security framework to ensure a timely response to threats of unlawful interference with aircraft.

The amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 will improve the reliability of cockpit voice recorder information for future safety investigation purposes by clarifying the legality of necessary maintenance practices. On many occasions, cockpit voice recorder information is the essential piece in the puzzle to determine why an accident occurred. We must make sure the source of this information is functioning and reliable and that the information is used only for legitimate testing and maintenance purposes.

Lastly, the amendments to the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 will improve the workability of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s accident and incident reporting scheme. It is essential that safety data is reported on accidents and incidents for the improvement of future transport safety.

The amendments contained in this bill will further enhance Australia’s aviation security and safety regime, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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