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

Today we are debating the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (2009 Measures No. 2) Bill 2009another bill amending Australia’s aviation laws. Indeed, it seems like only yesterday that I was in this place speaking to the government’s last bill on the matter, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. I have no objection to speaking about aviation in this place—or, for that matter, anywhere else. It is an important part of the transport network in Australia, and it deserves due attention from both the government and the opposition. But it does seem odd to me that the government do not have their act sufficiently together to have incorporated the amendments proposed in this bill into one of their previous bills on aviation.

We seem to have a succession of quite trivial bills dealing with minor amendments to aviation matters. Surely a government that were properly on top of their policy development and knew what they were doing would have been able to incorporate all of these measures into a single aviation bill. So, in this last sitting week of 2009, and with nothing much else for the government to talk about, we are back onto aviation and a bill that contains very minor amendments on a subject that we dealt with only a few months ago, when there was another series of fairly minor amendments made to transport security measures. That is not to say that transport and aviation security is not important—it clearly is—but you would have thought that a government that understood the issues and knew what they were doing in aviation security would have been able to resolve all of these things in a single bill. I do not know whether the government are trying to get their score up for the number of bills that they have dealt with in the year, but I would have thought the content of the bill would be more important than the number.

This is a case of another uncontroversial aviation bill coming into the parliament to deal with some changes in relation to security arrangements, particularly for cargo. But this bill, like the previous one, has avoided all the really important unanswered questions facing the aviation sector. While we are dealing with comparative trivia, the government have failed to address the important matters regarding aviation policy. It has been nearly a year since the government presented their aviation green paper to, in their own words, ‘secure Australia’s aviation future’. The minister’s media release of 2 December 2008 promised:

… a detailed National Aviation Policy Statement (White Paper) in the second half of next year.

Well, we are in ‘the second half of next year’. There was later a suggestion that it was going to be September 2009—and now it is going to be December. If the government are going to bring out this white paper on the eve of Christmas, again one has to wonder why they have not been prepared to address these issues more openly, rather than hide them in the run-up to Christmas.

We are well into the second half of 2009 and there is still no white paper. Like many of those involved in the aviation industry, I look forward to what it will contain and I hope it will resolve some of the issues facing the sector at this critical time. We have been waiting for the white paper. There has been a policy vacuum ever since the government came to office—a hiatus of two years when no important decisions have been made on aviation policy. Measures underway by the previous government, particularly things such as the general aviation action agenda, were put on hold. They had to wait until the green paper, and that took a year. When that came out we were told to wait for the white paper and in that time nothing has happened. The momentum for reform and change in the general aviation sector has been lost.

Nothing has been done about other key issues that people might be interested in. The government has been flagging its interest in what it might do about the second airport for Sydney. Bear in mind that there has been bipartisan support for the reservation of the Badgerys Creek site now for many, many years. Now we are told that the government is going to abandon Badgerys Creek, that it is not going to be built; but of course it has no other alternative. Ideas have been floated around about Goulburn and distant places. Last week we heard Richmond come up again for about the 10,000th time. Governments of both political persuasions have considered Richmond seriously over recent decades and have always rejected it because it is an unsuitable site for a major airport for Sydney. There are serious environmental issues with Richmond, issues such as fog and approaches to the airport and suggestions that hundreds of metres might have to be taken off the top of the Blue Mountains to enable approaches to be made to the airport. There are certainly key issues for towns like Richmond and Windsor—historic parts of the Australian landscape—if Richmond is to be used as a major airport for Sydney. Richmond is back on the agenda again. It is always rejected. It has been rejected previously by Labor in government. On previous occasions it has been rejected by the coalition. But it is back again because Labor has no other ideas. The concept of building a second airport for Sydney at Goulburn or Newcastle seems to me to leave a lot to be desired. If you are travelling from Melbourne to Sydney, you do not want to land in Newcastle and have a 1½-hour or two-hour journey back to Sydney. You do not want to land in Goulburn and have a couple of hours drive back into Sydney. It is simply not a practical option as a second airport for Sydney.

Of course, there is actually no need for a second airport for Sydney for a lot of years, even decades. The current airport will be able to meet demand for the foreseeable future. The government is raising this issue again and again. It has no answers. The green paper took a year. Now the white paper has taken a year. There have been no answers and no policy issues to address aviation in all that time.

There are plenty of other key aviation issues that the government might be prepared to consider if it was generally interested in some of those important questions. I have already mentioned Sydney Airport. The government needs to reverse its decision to abolish the Enroute Charges Scheme—an incredible decision to disadvantage those trying to provide services in regional Australia. We have already had services closed at a result of this $5 million-a-year decision of the federal government. When the government is out there spending billions and billions of dollars, running up $315 billion of debt, it has to slash $5 million off a scheme to reduce the aviation charges to small airlines running on largely uneconomic routes to small regional communities. As I said before, a number of services have already been axed as a result. No new ones are likely to start because of this extra cost. If the government is at all serious about providing proper aviation services to regional Australia, it needs to look thoroughly at the wisdom of that decision.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I realise that you are a whiz at aviation, but I would like you to get to the actual bill in front of us at this point in time.

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, when bills deal with aviation the debate is always quite general about the issue.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue may be general, but the bill before us is a fairly specific one.

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

I am more than happy to tie the abolition of the en route charges subsidy to the fact that cargo is carried on these aircraft, which is the subject of this bill,. I am also happy to refer the remarks about Sydney’s second airport to cargo, because one of the intended purposes of that airport is for cargo flights and therefore this bill is completely relevant, I would suggest, to the subject matter I have been talking about.

There are many other questions about aviation that we could ask. What is the government doing about the passenger movement charge? Is it being spent on its intended purposes or how much of it is simply going into consolidated revenue? I think it is important that the government come clean with the aviation sector. Two years of inaction on aviation policy has clearly left the industry with a feeling of uncertainty about what its future might be.

Hanging over the people of Brisbane are the flights coming into Brisbane Airport after, say, 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock at night. Many of them are cargo flights. These flights are of particular importance to the economic wellbeing of Queensland and yet the Prime Minister is on the record as trying to prevent Brisbane Airport operating after 11 o’clock at night. Even though the nearest house to Brisbane Airport is over six kilometres from the runway—I acknowledge that that house is very close to the Prime Minister’s own house but, nonetheless, it is still over six kilometres away from Brisbane Airport—there is this threat, going back to the days when the Prime Minister was just the member for Griffith, of imposing a curfew on Brisbane Airport. That is of serious concern to the people who are about to invest about $2 billion in the new runway at Brisbane Airport and in the proposed extensions to the domestic terminal. These sorts of investments cannot happen if, in fact, there is a threat to the viability of Brisbane Airport and to the hours during which it can operate.

The government needs to address these issues and give not only the owners of Brisbane Airport but, more importantly, the people and the businesses of South-East Queensland the assurance that constraints will not be put on the operation of Brisbane Airport to suit the whims of the Prime Minister. These are important questions and they need to be answered and answered in the context of the much awaited white paper.

This bill makes some changes to air cargo policy. Can I emphasise, again, just how important the air cargo sector is to the Australian economy. Many people think of exports as coal and iron ore and exports going through our seaports. But many Australian exporters also depend on the air cargo sector to reach their overseas customers. Naturally, there are other options for sending Australian goods to overseas markets, but the aviation sector is particularly important when exports need to get to their destination quickly. In some cases, that can be fresh food products, cargo that needs to be used in industry at short notice and smaller items which we have become used to sending around the world by air. Many Australian businesses are willing to and do pay a premium to get the goods to their destination by air.

In 2007-08 international airfreight traffic totalled over 780,000 tonnes. Both inbound and outbound airfreight traffic have shown increases in recent years. Because such a lot of that freight is actually carried underneath in the bellies of passenger aircraft, security arrangements are especially important. It is appropriate that a strict security regime be in place to guarantee the safety of not just the airfreight but the passengers who are on board those aircraft.

Outbound international airfreight—that is, Australian exports by air—totalled over 300,000 tonnes in the year ended June 2008. Nearly 70,000 tonnes of this airfreight were carried on Qantas jets, and many other airlines were involved in the carriage of airfreight—Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Cathay Pacific, and Air New Zealand each carried over 20,000 tonnes of outbound air cargo. Over 40 per cent of our outbound international air cargo was sent through Sydney airport and the most common destinations for outbound air cargo from Australia were Singapore, Hong Kong and Auckland. In many cases, Australian air cargo would have been forwarded on from these intermediate destinations to reach customers around the globe.

Air cargo is also an important part of the domestic freight industry. In terms of sheer tonnage, air cargo is a relatively small part of Australia’s domestic freight network. Currently air cargo handles about a quarter of a billion tonne kilometres and this is projected to grow at a rate of about three per cent a year. Sending cargo by air tends to be a more popular option when long distances or high value cargo is involved. Customers pay a premium for the speed of air freight, and when they need to get high value goods to distant or isolated destinations the air cargo sector provides a valuable service. It is critical that Australia’s air cargo sector remains a viable part of the freight system. It is also critical that security in the air cargo sector maintains its impressive record.

The Regulated Air Cargo Agent Scheme was created in 1996, and regulated freight forwarders and couriers who certified air freight for international carriers. The RACAs include couriers, cargo agents, express post services and other organisations involved in the transport of cargo by air. They are responsible for certifying air cargo, maintaining the security of cargo until it leaves their possession, and providing their employees with security training to improve their skills. The RACA Scheme meets Australia’s responsibilities under the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

Of course, the security environment surrounding aviation was dramatically changed by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. In response to those attacks, the then coalition government completely restructured aviation security. Improvements to security in the air cargo sector were a part of this revamp. The coalition enacted the Australian Transport Security Act of 2004 to ensure security in Australian skies. The act repealed security provisions contained in the Air Navigation Act 1920 and its accompanying regulations, and the old RACA Scheme was replaced by an updated system. The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 strengthened the regulatory framework surrounding aviation security and provided the flexibility necessary to respond to a rapidly changing air security environment.

It also took responsibility for the regulations governing the RACA Scheme and the air cargo industry. These regulations have been updated periodically under both coalition and Labor governments to reflect the changing needs of aviation security. The ATSA 2004 and its accompanying regulations required all organisations involved in transporting air cargo to apply appropriate security measures as determined by regulations under the act and to implement a transport security program approved by the Department of Transport, just like airlines and other aviation industry participants.

A TSP details how aviation industry participants will manage security within their operations and protect their operations from acts that may lead to interference with aviation security. It is a legally binding document and it is audited by the department. The requirement to maintain a TSP will continue to remain in place and has provided an enhanced level of security across the industry. Currently there are over 950 RACAs in over 1,700 sites across Australia dealing with international and domestic air cargo. Well over 2,000 employees with security functions have been trained under the RACA security training framework.

Since the introduction of the RACA Scheme, the air cargo sector has operated without a major security breach. In a challenging environment, with billions of dollars of cargo being transported every year, this is testament to the effectiveness of the security regime. But it should not lead to complacency. It is important that security regulations in Australian aviation appropriately reflect the level of risk at any given time. It is also important that security regulations do not unduly hamper the efficient operation of the air cargo sector, especially given its importance to the Australian economy and its dependence on speed to attract its business.

The bill currently before the House amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. It continues the reforming work that occurred under those on this side of the House, and the opposition is happy to support it. The bill will expand the definition of ‘cargo’ to mean an article that is ‘reasonably likely’ to be transported by aircraft. Often, the decision to transport a piece of cargo by air is not made as soon as it is lodged with a cargo agent; sometimes that decision is made much further along the supply chain. As a result, cargo may not be inspected and certified early on in the supply chain. It may have to be inspected and certified just before being loaded onto an aircraft, which may mean having to extract it from a larger shipment. This can be inefficient and impose unnecessary delays and costs on the industry. If such an article could be inspected and certified earlier in the supply chain before the decision to transport it by air was made, it would make for a more efficient supply chain and would allow action to be taken at a more appropriate and convenient time.

The definition of ‘reasonably likely’ will be established by regulations under the act. It is our understanding that it would encompass goods that are identified by the sender as priority freight or goods that are accompanied by a dangerous goods statement. The bill will also expand the definition of ‘industry participants’ who are authorised to certify cargo to include both regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents.

The AACA Scheme extends the RACA Scheme to cover smaller operators with less complex operations. It is not yet in place, and no AACAs have yet been recognised, but the scheme will come into effect and the government will approve AACAs in 2010. I understand that the government has received many registrations of interest from operators interested in being accredited under the scheme.

Participation in the AACA program will bring smaller operators into the air cargo security regime and will allow these operators to transport cargo from one RACA to another without compromising the security environment. This bill will ensure that a regulatory framework exists in time for the AACA Scheme to come into effect. Participation in either the RACA Scheme or the AACA Scheme will be compulsory for all operators involved in the transport of air cargo.

Other countries, including many of Australia’s major trading partners, are currently introducing similar schemes. Such a scheme will be beneficial in itself but, if it ensures that the Australian air cargo sector is moving in the same direction as our overseas trading partners, it will have additional benefits. A supply chain that allows a package to be inspected and certified upon receipt by one firm, transported to an airport by a second, handled and loaded onto an airplane by a third, and shipped overseas by a fourth, all without leaving a secure and regulated environment will, hopefully, enhance efficiency without compromising the good reputation of Australia’s air cargo sector overseas.

The bill will allow regulations to be made that will stipulate the circumstances under which cargo can be certified by a RACA or an AACA. Like anything that is done through regulations, attention will need to be given to the details. At the moment, cargo tends to be examined just before it is loaded onto an aircraft. This means that there is a very short period between certification and loading where any potential tampering could occur. Under the amendments proposed by this bill, inspection and certification will be allowed to take place further back in the supply chain, before cargo arrives to be loaded onto an aircraft.

There are good reasons to allow such certification earlier, and I referred to them a few moments ago. If security checking is all done at the last minute, a great deal of pressure is put on the individuals doing the inspections and the prospect that something may be missed could exist. Allowing inspection and certification earlier, when cargo is in a less consolidated and more accessible state, is likely to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the air cargo security regime. But if certification is done at a point that is far removed both in time and distance from loading it is understandable that aircraft operators would have concerns about the potential risk of tampering during the waiting or pre-transport period. This is an issue that has been raised by a number of the airlines, and it will be very important in dealing with the regulations that these risks are in fact addressed. It will mean that the regulations governing the RACA and the AACA schemes will need to ensure that once cargo is examined and certified it is kept secure and in tamper-free circumstances.

The United States has recently finished piloting the Certified Cargo Screening Program. Carriers and cargo agents are audited by the appropriate transport authorities under this scheme and are expected to comply with security regulations in the conduct of their business, much like the schemes proposed in this bill. Under the American scheme, inspection and certification can be only one point removed from acceptance by the air carrier. The scheme proposed by this bill will allow certification further back in the supply chain, but the regulations stipulating the circumstances under which this certification can occur have of course not yet been seen. The regulations governing air cargo security under the RACA and the AACA schemes will need to be sufficiently tight to preclude unacceptable risk to air carriers. The opposition, along with air cargo industry players, will certainly watch the regulations closely to ensure that they do not allow a security gap between the certification of cargo and the loading of that cargo onto an aircraft. The bill will also make minor changes enabling the secretary of the department to issue notices specifying the circumstances under which cargo may be certified by approved agents, change the definition of cargo in existing TSPs to the definition contained within the bill and maintain the validity of existing regulations made under the ATSA. These amendments are reasonable and acceptable to the coalition. Overall, the bill will provide a more flexible and appropriate security regime that will enhance air cargo security without imposing undue or excessive restrictions on industry participants.

The air cargo sector plays an important role in Australia’s transport network. In recent years security in this sector has been challenged by developments, and it has to meet these challenges. Given Australia’s record in air cargo security, we may conclude that the security regime established by previous governments has been effective. As the security environment changes, Australia needs to respond. It should be the goal of both governments and the air cargo sector to ensure that the Australian freight network remains secure without imposing excessive regulation and costs on industry and the ordinary Australians who depend upon it to operate efficiently and effectively. The legislation therefore builds on the strong foundations left by the previous government. It will enable us to maintain an air cargo security apparatus that enhances Australia’s reputation for robust security amongst our major trading partners and that is as effective and efficient as possible.

Maxine McKew (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Nationals for his comments. Certainly the bulk of those comments only go to prove just how important this bill is, not the matter of trivia that he referred to in his opening comments. I also thank the Leader of the Nationals for the gratuitous lecture about how the government is organising aviation policy. I would have thought that to be lectured about the management of business in this of all weeks was truly remarkable, but I always stand to be surprised. The Australian government will release the aviation paper soon. The Leader of the Nationals knows this. It will be a comprehensive document. The government has received something like 500 submissions from industry and the community in the development of what will be Australia’s first ever national aviation policy, and I look forward to the comments of the Leader of the Nationals on that paper.

But, as to this bill, the government has a specific role in relation to transport and supply-chain security. The Office of Transport Security in the department regulates the transport security industry to minimise the risk of unlawful interference that could result in catastrophic consequences for an aircraft from an improvised explosive device in cargo. As has been said, the security of air cargo is absolutely critical to ensure Australia’s compliance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation and also to ensure that we meet the security requirements of key trading partners such as the United States and the European Union.

Approximately 80 per cent of international air cargo is carried on passenger aircraft, and total air cargo exports for Australia in 2008 were valued at $31 billion. Air cargo is mostly lightweight, high-value and requiring urgent delivery. To meet customer demands, the air cargo industry’s ability to quickly and securely transport goods and services domestically and internationally is crucial in today’s competitive economy.

The air cargo industry is a diverse and multimodal environment. The handling and processing of air cargo involves a complex web of physical movements by a large number of individuals and organisations. Most air cargo is handled by multiple operators and passes through several consolidation points before it is loaded onto an aircraft. Factors such as the volume and the time-critical nature of such cargo, the number and mixed responsibilities of air cargo handlers, as has been stated, and the physical constraints on processing cargo all impact on the flow of goods at various stages through the supply chain. The government believes that better security checking earlier in the supply chain, when the goods are in a less consolidated state and more easily unpacked and scrutinised, is the most effective and efficient way to manage security. So I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for what is obviously a sensible approach.

The bill contains six key amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, to expand the regulatory scope for supply chain security by the Office of Transport Security, Australia’s aviation security regulator. Firstly, the bill will expand the definition of ‘cargo’ to include circumstances where cargo is reasonably likely to be transported by aircraft. Currently, cargo is defined more narrowly, limiting the point at which those security measures are applied. The bill and subsequent regulations will ensure all cargo likely to be transported by aircraft is dealt with by parties who are regulated and obliged to apply security measures at each stage.

The second amendment will expand the scope of industry participants who may certify cargo, through a revised definition of the term ‘certified’. Currently, cargo can only be certified by aircraft operators. So the revised definition will allow certification of cargo by regulated air cargo agents, accredited air cargo agents and aircraft operators. This amendment will allow an expanded range of industry participants to clear cargo. Thirdly, the bill will allow for regulations that will prescribe the circumstances in which cargo may be certified. The fourth amendment in the bill will give the secretary of the department the power to issue a written notice specifying the circumstances in which cargo may be certified. That will allow for the system to be more flexible and responsive to technological advancements and to international obligations. The fifth amendment will introduce a transitional provision for transport security programs to ensure consistency with the provisions of this bill. And the final amendment will preserve the existing regulations until such time as new regulations take effect.

So, overall, this bill and its regulations will ensure that when a parcel gets to the airport there will be a clear paper trail assuring the person who loads the cargo that it has been security cleared. So the amendments will provide the foundations for a whole-of-supply-chain security system which is sufficiently flexible that it can be adapted in line with new technology and changes in the level of threat.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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