Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, significant efforts have been made around the world to improve transport security. Consistent with this, the former coalition government made ongoing efforts to ensure that Australia had a security regime that was suitable for protection against potential terrorist threats and attacks. The original introduction of the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act was part of these ongoing efforts.

I will talk about the aviation industry in the first instance. International and domestic aviation is vitally important for all Australians. It connects us with each other and, of course, with the rest of the world. This is particularly important considering one has to travel approximately 4,000 kilometres from east to west, a fact of which members from Western Australia are very much aware. Our aviation industry is also a central component of our economy.

The attempted terrorist attack on a flight bound for the United States from Europe on Christmas Day last year indicated to the United States, but also to Australia, that we are in need of stronger measures to prevent unlawful interference with aviation. We need to acknowledge the contribution that aviation makes to Australia’s overall economy. Steady economic growth, particularly during the years of the previous coalition government, have increased tourism and made for a more profitable airline sector, which in turn has driven the expansion of Australia’s aviation sector.

In the 2007-08 financial year, over 49 million passengers travelled on Australian domestic airlines. It is also very important to note that regional airlines carried 5.8 million passengers, a figure which represents an increase of 11 per cent over the year 2006. Regional airlines and regional airports are an important part of Australian aviation’s history and future. A healthy aviation sector is vital for our ongoing prosperity and ongoing economic growth.

Alongside the aviation industry, Australia’s maritime industry is equally critical to the economic prosperity of Australia. Australia relies on sea transport for 99 per cent of our exports. A substantial proportion of our domestic freight also depends on coastal shipping. The former coalition government implemented a maritime security regime to help safeguard Australia’s maritime transport system and offshore facilities from terrorism and unlawful interference. Under this regime, all security regulated ports, port facilities, offshore facilities, port and offshore service providers and ships undertake security assessments and implement security plans to address identified risks.

Following on from September 11, the international community resolved to implement a system to secure the maritime transport sector against the threat of  terrorism. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, ISPS, developed by the International Maritime Organisation in December 2002 was the result. The coalition developed the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003 to implement the ISPS Code in Australia. Both the ISPS Code and the act came into effect on 1 July 2004.

In 2005, the act was extended and renamed the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The amended act and regulations under it established the legislative basis for also improving security plans for offshore oil and gas facilities. International developments and a number of reviews have led to changes and refinements in the legislation underpinning the maritime security regime.

The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The Aviation Transport Security Act amendments are designed to increase the flexibility of the aviation transport security framework to rapidly respond to an aviation security incident. The Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act amendments, among other things, give or allow for increased powers to various maritime security officials for various purposes.

The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 seeks to introduce new security arrangements for civil aviation and passenger ships. The amendments were announced as a response to the National Security Adviser’s review of aviation security, following the attempted terrorist attacks on the US-bound flight on Christmas Day last year, which I alluded to in my opening comments. The bill proposes to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 in the following ways.

The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 amendments change the process of listing prohibited items. Currently items are proscribed under regulation. It is proposed to empower the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to issue, as a legislative instrument, a notice specifying a list of prohibited items. The effect of this would be to speed the process of amending and updating the list. The notice would be a disallowable instrument. Some examples of items currently on the prohibited items list are meat cleavers, aerosol containers, golf clubs, letter openers and handcuffs. The maximum penalty for being in unauthorised possession of a prohibited item will remain 20 penalty units, which currently stands at $2,200 or two years imprisonment. The government has stated in the explanatory memorandum that enabling the prohibited items list to be amended by legislative instrument, rather than by regulation, will allow this list to remain responsive to emerging threats to aviation security while preserving parliamentary scrutiny via the usual disallowance procedure.

The second amendment to the act is to enable the secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to delegate any of his or her functions to an SES employee in the Attorney-General’s Department in preparation for the establishment of a Commonwealth incident coordinator within the Attorney-General’s Department from 1 July this year.

Amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act are as follows. They will allow operators of Australian ships to apply for an exemption from the requirement to hold a ship security plan in exceptional circumstances; allow operators of foreign flagged ships that have been granted an exemption by their flag state from holding an international ship security certificate to have that exemption observed in Australia; permit frisk searches to be conducted on passengers and crew boarding security related passenger ships; enable the appointment of security assessment inspectors to conduct security assessments of maritime industry participants; and modernise the recording media options for maritime security inspectors.

In conclusion, the coalition supports the changes that have been proposed to both of these acts. It must be said that they are relatively modest against the rhetoric in the minister’s second reading speech, although we have to expect that from the government. There is a mass of rhetoric and then very modest outcomes. In particular, the minister quoted the counterterrorism white paper. It read:

The threat of terrorism to Australia is real and enduring. It has become a persistent and permanent feature of Australia’s security environment.

This is at odds with his announcement in December that it was common sense to relax security in favour of reducing waiting time for passengers.

Despite the confusion that the minister’s various announcements have created as to the government’s approach to transport security, these measures are not controversial from the opposition’s perspective and the bill, accordingly, has our support. It is integral to continuing to improve national maritime and aviation security and making the necessary amendments to do so, particularly in relation to emerging threats. The coalition recognises that threats to our security are increasingly complex and unpredictable and that we must get on the front foot with a coordinated and uncompromising approach to protecting our maritime borders and our aviation spaces. Ultimately, it is of vital importance to Australia that our maritime and aviation security measures are amended to ensure that we are best able to respond to changes in our overall security environment, and thus these modest proposals have the support of the opposition.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010 makes important amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. These changes are designed to strengthen security arrangements in both the aviation and maritime fields and, as such, have the support of the coalition. In relation to civil aviation, the changes to the aviation legislation are in response to the review of aviation security after the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day on a flight in the United States. The first amendment allows the responsible minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, to issue prohibited items lists by legislative instruments. It also gives the department’s secretary the ability to delegate their powers and responsibilities to a senior executive service officer in the Attorney-General’s Department. This is designed to move towards the introduction, in July 2010, of the position of Commonwealth incident coordinator in the Attorney-General’s Department.

I think we are all familiar with the announcement of the relaxation—albeit the small relaxation—but there are have inconsistencies across aviation security in this country. As a frequent traveller, as we all are, one inconsistency that puzzles me relates to umbrellas. If you go through Brisbane Airport or Canberra Airport and you have an umbrella, you have to take it out and put it up. But if you go through other airports in Australia you do not have to. It is just bizarre that there is not a common set of guidelines at the security checkpoints at airports.

On security checkpoints, I am pleased that department officials are here today. At the main security entry in terminal 3, the Qantas terminal, at Sydney airport there are three security scanners. The scanner that is closest to the city—I guess it is best described that way—is far more sensitive than the other two scanners. When you talk to the staff, they say: ‘Yes, we know. We’ve known for two years. We’ve been telling the department for two years, but they keep saying to us that it is adjusted just the same as every other scanner.’ If you stand there and watch the passengers going through, you will see that that is not the case. That is how I picked it up, because I go through many airport scanners and I do not go off, but I go off every time I go through that scanner. Now I do not go through that scanner or, if I am forced to go through it and I go off, I do not take my shoes off, because my shoes do not have metal in them. I just go through the other scanner and get through and I do not go off. I know it is probably a small point, but that causes a lack of confidence in our scanning system. The sensitivity of each of those scanners should be the same, otherwise the staff could become a bit lax because they know one scanner is more sensitive than the others and they might not worry if it goes off. So I just ask the department to have a look at that and once and for all fix the problem.

I am also puzzled by plastic knives on aeroplanes. As you travel around the world, there are plenty of airlines that have steel knives. We all know that. Steel knives are actually allowed on aeroplanes flying in Australian airspace as well, on aircraft coming in from overseas. I am puzzled why we have plastic knives and steel forks, because it does not seem to be consistent with the security risk. There are many other security risks on aeroplanes. I am not going to canvass them now because it would be irresponsible to do so, but I know that, if I really wanted to do something, if I were a terrorist, I could do it in the context of what is currently allowed on aeroplanes. We should be careful about that.

I am pleased to see the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government here. Minister, you and your department ought to have a look at this issue with aviation security identification cards. I say this not as a criticism. I say it to be helpful, because we are all of a mind to make sure we have the best security that we can. All staff that operate air side at an airport are required to wear and display an ASIC tag at all times. That is proper. You get an ASIC if you do not have a criminal history and you meet the security criteria. But what is interesting is, if you want to be a private pilot, to obtain a student pilot’s licence you sign a form and you pay an administration fee. No flight lessons are required to have a student pilot licence. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can go and get a student pilot licence, sign a form, pay a fee and you do not have to fly. But that automatically entitles you to an ASIC without any security checks. All you do is get a student pilot licence, apply for an ASIC and you receive it in the mail six weeks later. There is no security check on the ASIC that is given to a student pilot. It is CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who manage this process. Minister, I think you ought to have a look at that apparent flaw in our security processes. The requirement to have the security check should be consistent across the application processes, in whatever situation ASICs are issued.

In relation to regional aerodromes, the government is moving to fix a problem that exists there. It is not fixed yet, but I recognise that the government is moving to do that.

Minister, just another matter—

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to refer all his remarks through the Deputy Speaker’s chair. You are constantly referring directly to the minister.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the minister to consider this: every time there is a security upgrade there are additional charges that go to the airport operators, and the airport operators have to cover those charges from airlines—and that is okay—but because it is a highly competitive business and because airlines are under huge cost pressures, it is very difficult for the airport operators to reach a negotiated settlement on these charges. I have seen at one airport that there is a huge negotiation process going on over a 1c difference in what the charge should be. It is that fine. So the airport says to me, ‘Perhaps the government could assist in this process by finding a way that makes it easier for airports and air operators to be able to have a mechanism to agree on how these charges are passed on, because it is nobody’s fault that we have got to pass on the charges. The passengers have got to pay, we all recognise that, but there is just this argy-bargy that goes on because there is a change in security requirements because the government says we should do this.’ Perhaps the minister could have a look at how that all operates and help both the airline industry and the airport industry to make it easier to allow these charges to be passed on. Thank you for the opportunity to make my contribution this afternoon.

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

I thank those members who have participated in the debate on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. This is a bill that further strengthens the aviation and maritime security frameworks that are set up under the Australian Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. Amendments to both of these acts will make important changes to improve the flexibility and responsiveness of Australia’s transport security regime.

I welcome the fact that there is bipartisan support for this bill, but I will also make some comments on the contributions of the two coalition speakers to this debate. The first speaker, the member for Stirling, opposed the government’s changes which came into effect on Christmas Day last year making common-sense changes to what will be allowed on aircraft—specifically, the fact that metal cutlery will be allowed to be used on Australian aircraft. He argued that this presented a confused and inconsistent position from the government. It does nothing of the sort. The confused and inconsistent position of those opposite was highlighted by the fact that there were two coalition speakers and one said these changes were a bad thing and the other said they were a good thing. The member for Herbert, who spoke immediately after the member for Stirling, said—obviously not aware of the changes in regulations that the government has introduced—that the banning of metal cutlery, ‘Doesn’t seem to be consistent with a security risk.’ He was right and the member for Stirling was wrong. The government’s changes to the prohibited items list last year as part of the aviation white paper were common-sense changes based upon advice from the appropriate security agencies on risk.

We know that a range of items which were on the prohibited list, including nail clippers and other items, were simply a distraction for people working on the front line of security at airports, who need to identify real risk and make sure that we keep them out of our airports. We need to concentrate the effort and energy of those people working on the front line, upon whom passengers rely to keep them safe, by having a common-sense approach to this. This change is consistent with what happens in the United States of America and Europe; indeed, even the security-conscious country of Israel allows metal cutlery on planes. And we have made that change.

I object completely to the member for Stirling coming in here and trying to play cheap, inconsistent politics on national security issues. I have a great responsibility and I take my obligation seriously. I rely on expert advice. Expert advice must be followed in this area; expert advice, not politics, must dictate action. That is why we introduced the changes to the prohibited items list last year based upon risk. The fact that the only speaker from the coalition on this bill today put exactly the opposite position shows their inconsistency on these items.

But there is another area of inconsistency that I would ask the member for Stirling to consider, and that is the new regulation restricting access to the cockpits of aircraft, which was gazetted yesterday. This regulatory change was made last year and it was disallowed by the Senate. We are reintroducing this regulation. I call upon the opposition to agree to these common-sense measures to restrict cockpit access and safeguard Australian travellers based on advice from aviation security experts. As a result of the opposition’s reckless disallowance, there are currently no effective legal restrictions on who can enter the cockpit of an aircraft. It is simply unacceptable that such an important part of aviation security has been left to industry self-regulation.

By restricting access to the cockpit, the government is taking a strong, practical and common-sense approach to strengthen the last line of defence against unlawful interference with a plane. Aviation security should be a bipartisan issue but similar regulations were voted down by the opposition in the Senate in September last year. These regulations will commence on 22 May 2010. I ask the opposition to reconsider their position on this issue because access to the cockpit of a plane should be based upon operational need. That is why these regulations are important.

I thank the member for Herbert for his support in his comments about government plans to upgrade security at our regional airports. I note that in last night’s budget, as part of our $200 million aviation security package, $32 million was allocated to assist with the upgrade of security at our regional airports. I ask the member for Herbert to talk to his National Party colleagues about why they should support this change. It is a common-sense change based on advice from experts, which surely the opposition also received when it was in government.

This government is committed to ensuring our national security. The legislation before the House today contains some small but important measures towards achieving that end. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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