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

I would like to begin my remarks on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 with a few general comments on aspects of the aviation industry and remind the House of the enormous contribution that aviation makes to Australia’s overall economy and especially to the lives of those who live in regional and remote communities.

Australia’s aviation industry contributes over $6 billion a year to the economy and directly supports nearly 50,000 jobs, a significant proportion of which are in regional areas. Steady economic growth, particularly during the years of the previous coalition government, increased tourism and a more efficient airline sector have driven the expansion of Australia’s aviation sector. In the 2007-08 year Australia’s domestic airlines carried 49 million passengers. In the same year, more than 23 million international passengers went through Australian airports.

A century ago, the only way to arrive in Australia was by boat but things have changed. Things have changed dramatically also in the aviation industry. The way in which our airlines operate, the efficiency of their businesses and the competitive nature of the industry are a far cry from the old two-airlines policy, protected arrangements and an industrial relations climate which was completely unconducive to running an efficient business. All of those changes have meant that it is now possible for Australia to have an airline industry which is not only safe and reliable but also capable of operating at a profit.

The 23 million passengers who arrived from around the world represent a gain of over five per cent on the previous year. A significant proportion of these passengers are tourists from other parts of the world. The millions of short-term international visitors represent a valuable contribution to the overall economy through the tourism sector.

Ours is a big country, and with such long distances to cover and so few people aviation frequently fills a critical gap in places where road or rail transport is not available or distances are too great. Aviation makes a significant contribution to tourism, mining and other industries in the regions. In 2007 regional airlines carried 5.8 million passengers, a figure that represents an increase of 11 per cent over the previous years.

The operation of many of these airline services for fly-in fly-out mining operations and businesses has meant extensive new networks across the continent. As a result we have services linking communities on a regular basis that, in fact, previously could never have expected to enjoy air services. I know that that has had implications of its own. The fact that large mining operations are employing thousands of people and earning huge amounts of money—billions of dollars—without there being the development of a local town and local community is a matter of concern to people who live in many regional communities. They have not got the benefit of the wealth that has been produced in their areas, because so many of the workers simply fly in and fly out, leaving little behind. That is a regrettable change in our lifestyle. It would be better as a nation if we had a lot more of the people who work in these communities actually living there, making it their home and decentralising our nation in a much stronger and more practical way. In recent times there has been a lot of attraction to the idea that some of the royalties from these projects should be returned to the regions so there is at least something left there when the mines close or in recognition of the enormous contribution that these facilities and these operations make to our national income. That is popular in regional areas because people believe they have a right to a fair share of services, and I think this is a principle that we need to extend more widely across the provision of government services both at a state level and nationally.

The millions of passenger movements that we have are on top of the millions of shipments made by the air cargo industry in and out of Australia. In 2007-08 international air freight traffic totalled about 780,000 tonnes. Both inbound and outbound air freight traffic have shown increases in recent years. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics estimates that over the next two decades air passenger movements in Australia’s airports will grow by an average of four per cent per year. Air travel is now a fundamental part of Australia’s national life. There are many fundamental services that need to be encouraged and supported to bring together the network of our nation. The aviation industry plays a particularly important role in that regard.

Over the years the aviation industry has had its ups and downs. Swine flu and the economic downturn have battered airlines in Australia and around the world as revenues dropped. Few airlines worldwide have been able to return a profit in the last year. Just recently Qantas, our national carrier, announced a drop in profits of 88 per cent. That is bad but at least they still had a profit.

Worse still, some communities have experienced a loss of air services as airlines have cut some of their operations in order to ensure that they have a return to their shareholders. Rex recently announced that it had to terminate some of its smaller routes linking Dubbo to Burke, Cobar, Coonamble, Lightning Ridge and Walgett, and the Mudgee to Sydney run, citing increasing costs, ever increasing regulatory requirements and the government’s termination of the end-route rebate. As a result, the short flight between Dubbo and Lightning Ridge is now a four-hour drive. If the road links into a regional town were cut, you could be sure that the government would take action. For some isolated communities, air links are just as critical. It is important to us to ensure that the aviation sector can continue to contribute to the economic base of communities and reduce the sense of isolation that those in rural and remote areas constantly face.

Unfortunately, Labor has never been a friend of regional aviation. For the seven million Australians who live outside our capital cities, regional aviation is an especially important link to the rest of the nation, providing transport and goods and services from large centres. It is important therefore that regional aviation is encouraged, particularly since many regional routes are of limited commercial value.

In this context, I appeal to the government again to reconsider its decision to abolish the Enroute Charges Rebate Scheme. This is a huge blow to regional Australia. I find it incredible that a government that can find billions and billions of dollars in a cash splash, that can find billions for school buildings and putting pink batts in people’s ceilings, cannot find $3 million or $4 million a year to maintain this vital Enroute Charges Rebate Scheme. It shows a total lack of sensitivity about what it is like to live in a community where daily, or even weekly, air services mean so much to improving people’s capacity to access medical and other services. I think the government is being cruel, thoughtless and inconsiderate in its decision to axe this program which, for very little expense, has made a significant difference to many communities. From 1 July 2008, Labor has limited the Enroute Charges Rebate Scheme to existing routes and service frequencies. From 30 June 2012, the scheme will be abolished altogether.

Regional aviation is struggling with ageing aircraft and the burden of red tape. Yet, in spite of these issues, Labor has chosen to close down the industry action agenda—the common voice of general aviation and the means by which the sector could advocate directly to the government. The previous government established the industry action agenda. We were determined to try and do something to improve the circumstances under which the general aviation sector operates in this nation. Labor has turned its back on it. Its white paper process just continues to put off and put off key decisions that are essential to the viability of this industry.

Labor has refused to consider new schemes to encourage the smaller aviation sector to accelerate its purchase of new aircraft. Moreover, in a style typical of the tax-and-spend approach of Labor governments, this one continues to regard the passenger movement charge as another revenue raiser. The PMC was established in 1995 as a measure to recoup the cost of the customs, immigration and quarantine processing of passengers entering and leaving Australia. In his first budget, the Treasurer increased the passenger movement charge from $38 to $47 and, at first, went as far as to apply this tax hike retrospectively. That $9 extra is going to cost airlines, travel agents, tourism operators and the flying public, and it hits the aviation sector at a time when it is struggling with rising costs and an uncertain economic environment.

Incredibly, in spite of the increase in the passenger movement charge, Labor has actually decided to reduce the number of quarantine inspections. The number of cargo consignments arriving into Australia to be inspected is to be reduced by 4.7 million. So, instead of putting this extra money into doing better in relation to customs and quarantine inspections, Labor is going to cut the inspections and reduce the scrutiny of goods and passengers arriving in this nation. Again it demonstrates something of Labor’s priorities. It claims it is doing job creation schemes, yet it is going to lay off several hundred quarantine and customs workers whose responsibility has been to help keep our country clean and green.

It is also important that the Australian aviation industry is safe. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the coalition, in government, took action to improve aviation security. Since that time, over $1 billion has been spent to enhance aviation security. The previous coalition government expanded the screening of passengers and checked baggage to ensure consistent security screening treatment of all passengers and baggage carried on jet aircraft departing from anywhere in Australia. Additional funding was provided to improve security in the air cargo industry.

The coalition also created the Air Security Officer Program, in December 2001, which placed sky marshals on selected domestic and international flights. Unfortunately, Labor has failed to confirm that funding for this program will not be reduced, and the number of sky marshals seems certain to be cut by at least a third. The sky marshals program is a valuable program and it is worth fully supporting.

When the government brings legislation into this place, allegedly on the grounds of improving security, but at the same time it is taking the security officers off aircraft, you wonder how sincere it is in its approach. You cannot wind back the sky marshals program and claim to have a credible record when it comes to improving security issues. So I call on the government to stop playing fast and loose with the lives of the flying public to save a few dollars.

Last December the government issued the aviation green paper and promised a further period of consultation before issuing a national aviation policy statement in the second half of this year. Like many of those involved in the aviation industry, I am looking forward to the release of this paper. I hope it will resolve some of the issues facing the sector at this critical time. The government has procrastinated now for almost two years. Action programs that were in place have been put on pause, and it is time that the government addressed the responsibilities that it has and made decisions so that the industry can plan ahead with confidence.

As part of the response to aviation security challenges, the coalition introduced the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, which involved aviation industry participants in maintaining aviation security and required them to develop and comply with a transport security program. That legislation strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment. It is this legislation that the bill currently before the House proposes to amend.

Because of actions taken under the coalition government, Australian skies are safer. The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill will continue the work begun by those on this side of the House, and the coalition is happy to support it. The bill will allow a security controlled airport to be assigned to a category that prescribes specific requirements reflecting the risk profile of each airport. The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 gives the secretary of the department the power to designate an airport as a security controlled airport. Such a designation requires an airport to fulfil certain security requirements.

Currently, any airport which is declared to be a security controlled airport faces the same security requirements regardless of their location, size or security situation. This means that a small regional jet airport is subject to the same security requirements as an airport in the biggest capital city. Transport security programs are currently written to comply with a very prescriptive regime, and many smaller airports would benefit from a more flexible and appropriate system. Allowing an airport to be assigned to a particular category will enable security resources to be targeted in a more appropriate way rather than applying a ‘one size fits all’ solution. If costs can be reduced through a more appropriate security regime, the viability of some air services will be enhanced. This can only benefit the communities that depend so much on the lifeline that aviation provides. Under the bill the details of security measures of the various categories will be prescribed under regulations, and the departmental secretary will assign airports to categories. Obviously, a lot of the devil may therefore be in the detail and we will be monitoring the regulations made under the ATSA to ensure that the prescriptions that are provided are appropriate.

The bill will also enable an aviation security inspector in the course of duty to enter and inspect premises of an aviation industry participant that are not on an airport site. At the moment inspectors are only able to exercise their powers without notice within the boundaries of a security controlled airport. This amendment will extend their inspection powers without providing prior notice to sites not located at airports. Many aviation industry participants such as air cargo agents have sites that are not located on the grounds of an airport. To ensure that they are able to effectively carry out their duties without hindrance, it is entirely appropriate that inspectors should have access to such sites. Such an inspection would only be carried out at a time when the site is open and operating and would only be carried out at sites directly associated with aviation security. The bill does not propose to grant undue or inappropriate powers to aviation security inspectors but simply seeks to extend their current powers to non-airport sites related to aviation security.

The bill will also create enforceable undertakings as a midrange sanction against contravention of the act. A variety of sanctions currently exist which are available to aviation authorities. If an aviation industry participant contravenes the act or breaches their transport security program, the authorities are currently able to issue an infringement notice, which has few teeth and is seen by some as just a slap on the wrist. If a stronger response is warranted, the next step up is court action, which may require shutting down the activities of the aviation industry participant. That is obviously a harsh punishment.

Enforceable undertakings would provide an appropriate midrange sanction in some cases. They would require aviation industry participants to take specified actions or refrain from taking specified actions. The bill proposes that the secretary of the department may accept an enforceable undertaking but does not state that he may force an aviation industry participant to enter into such an agreement. The department would establish the terms of an enforceable undertaking in consultation with aviation industry participants. This would mean that the views and concerns of airlines, air cargo agents, airport operators and other industry participants would receive their due attention in the process of resolving security issues. Providing enforceable undertakings as an option will enable authorities to take more decisive action in certain cases without being too draconian or imposing undue or excessive punishments. I believe it is preferable to involve aviation industry participants in improving the security regime and to encourage voluntary and cooperative solutions to minor security problems rather than taking a heavy-handed approach.

The breach of an enforceable undertaking would enable the secretary to apply to the Federal Court for an order to direct compliance. In most cases, however, I suspect such action would not be necessary and that the airline concerned would want to honour its enforceable undertaking. The options for stronger action still remain. If a serious security breach is discovered, aviation authorities would still have the same enforcement options open to them as they currently have under the act. This bill would simply add another option, which would be useful in certain cases.

The bill will expand the ability of aviation security inspectors to issue compliance control directions to airport operators or screening authorities. Control directions can currently be applied to aircraft operators or pilots, and the act currently states:

... an aviation security inspector must not give a compliance control direction unless the direction is necessary for ensuring compliance with this Act.

The bill would allow control directions to be applied to airport operators or screening authorities. This would enable inspectors to direct screening authorities or airport operators to take specified actions in relation to the airport or to screening points at the airport in the same way that they are currently able to direct pilots or aircraft operators. For example, if an inspector believes that a passenger has not been properly screened at a security checkpoint, at the moment the inspector has no authority to direct screening authorities to take any action. The only option would be to issue a control direction to the airline or the pilot preventing them from allowing the passenger to board or preventing the flight from taking off. Under the bill inspectors would be able to direct screening authorities to rescreen the passenger.

No wholesale expansion of the powers of aviation security inspectors is proposed by the bill. It simply extends their existing capacity to issue directions to airport operators and screening authorities on the same terms as those under which they can currently issue directions to pilots and aircraft operators. Overall, the bill will provide a more flexible and appropriate security regime that will enhance aviation security without imposing undue or excessive restrictions on industry participants.

In recent years, aviation security in Australia has gone through drastic changes in a very short time. These changes were necessary in order to ensure that Australian skies remain safe. Given Australia’s record in aviation security, we may conclude that the changes we have made have been effective. I do appreciate that the legitimate demands of aviation security have at times imposed costs and inconvenience on both the industry and the flying public. It should be the goal of governments and aviation security authorities to ensure that our skies remain secure without imposing excessive regulations and costs on the aviation industry and the flying public. This legislation will build on the strong foundation left by the coalition and enable us to maintain an aviation security apparatus that is both flexible and effective.

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

(Hon. BC Scott)—I took the view that the deferred division should not be proceeded with until the member speaking at 8 pm had completed his speech, so I did not interrupt the member. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour.