Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Gillard government is committed to a strong and effective aviation security regime for Australia.

Before turning to the legal reforms contained in this bill, I would like to place them in context.

On 18 December 2009, the government announced major reforms and a new model for the policing of Australia’s 11 major airports, to be led by the Australian Federal Police. This will involve a three- to five-year transition period and will strengthen major airport policing in Australia.

The All-In model will result in the AFP taking full control of the community policing role at these 11 airports, replacing the current hybrid model involving AFP and state and territory police. The AFP will also move to a ‘fully sworn’ presence so that all AFP personnel deployed at the airport will have the same training and powers. Having sworn AFP members policing these airports will maximise responsiveness and ensure our airports receive the highest quality policing.

There will still be close collaboration and intelligence sharing between Commonwealth agencies and state and territory police through joint aviation investigation teams and joint aviation intelligence groups. We will be consulting the states and territories closely in implementing these reforms.

On 9 February last year, the former Prime Minister announced a series of measures to strengthen international and domestic aviation security totalling $200 million over four years.

This includes $17.8 million to increase the number of firearms and explosive detection dogs at major international airports by 50 per cent and $12.3 million in 2010-11 to maintain the AFP presence at major airports.

Other initiatives being progressed are designed to enhance screening of both passengers and cargo, and to strengthen engagement and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.

In addition the government has announced it will provide $759.4 million for policing at Australian airports over four years. The funding supports the AFP presence at Australia’s 11 major airports, intelligence gathering and investigation capability, the AFP’s regional rapid deployment capacity and the Air Security Officer program.

The AFP and other agencies continue to meet complex challenges and threats within the aviation environment. To do their work effectively, the AFP need to be supported by appropriate laws that provide deterrence and recognise the gravity of aviation related crimes.

It is against this background that I present the Aviation Crimes and Policing Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011].

The bill has three components. Firstly, it increases penalties for a number of offences in the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. Secondly, it creates three new aviation related offences. Thirdly, it proposes amendments to legislation to ensure that existing policing powers are available to the AFP in the airport environment, which will support the move to the ‘All-In’ policing model.

The first component of the bill concerns penalties.

Earlier this year the Attorney-General’s Department reviewed the Crimes (Aviation) Act, which is now 19 years old. The act contains offences directed against aircraft and airports.

It became clear that there are a number of penalties in the act that do not reflect the seriousness of these offences.

For example, under the Criminal Code, a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment could apply to a person who is found guilty of making threats to contaminate goods. In comparison, under the existing provisions in the Crimes (Aviation) Act, a person who makes a bomb threat could only be imprisoned for a maximum of two years.

This is a very low penalty, given the very serious disruption, and potential danger that such hoaxes can create—for example, if a flight is redirected as a result or if an airport has to be evacuated.

Under the amendments in this bill, the penalties in the act will now fall within four tiers. The severity of the penalty in each tier corresponds with the type of offence falling within each tier.

Life imprisonment (tier 1), the most severe maximum penalty will continue to apply to offences such as hijacking or destroying an aircraft while it is in flight. The attempted terrorist bombing of the American flight NW253 would have fallen within this tier if it had occurred on an Australian interstate or overseas flight.

A maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment (tier 2), will apply to very serious offences that pose danger or cause harm to whole groups of people, such as endangering an aircraft while in flight. The offences in this tier have had their maximum penalties raised from either seven, 14 or 15 years.

For example, assaulting a pilot, thereby impairing the operation of an aircraft will now carry a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, rather than the 14 years it currently carries.

Endangering the safety of an aircraft on an interstate flight, for example, by attempting to seize control of the aircraft, would carry a 20 year penalty, not seven years.

A maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment (tier 3) would apply to offences that are generally against aircraft or aviation environments, such as disrupting a major airport or destroying its facilities, which currently carry maximum penalties of seven or 10 years.

For example, damaging the runway or air traffic control facilities at Sydney airport would carry a maximum 14 years imprisonment rather than the current seven or 10 years depending on the circumstances.

Imprisonment for up to 10 years (tier 4) would apply to offences such as hoaxes and taking control of an aircraft, which currently carry maximum penalties of two and 10 years respectively. For example, making a bomb threat to an airport would constitute an offence that would carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

The second component of the bill concerns new offences and definitions.

The bill inserts three new offences into the Crimes (Aviation) Act. These new offences are designed to cover gaps that existed in the coverage of the existing offences.

There will be a new offence of assaulting an aircraft crew member. This offence will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

While there is already an offence in the act directed against the assault of a crew member, it can only be applied if the prosecution can prove that the assault has impeded the operation of the aircraft. The new offence provision will not require this.

This offence has been particularly welcomed by the aviation sector during consultations with them.

There will be a new offence directed against the reckless endangerment of the safety of an aircraft which is likely to cause death or serious harm. This offence will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

This offence builds on the existing offence contained in the act of endangering an aircraft. The new offence, however, deals with more serious actions, and where the effect of the act in question is a likelihood of causing death or serious harm. Firing a weapon on board an aircraft would come within this offence, even if no one was hit.

The final new offence concerns possessing dangerous goods onboard an aircraft which are likely to endanger life or cause serious harm. There is currently an offence concerning dangerous goods but not one where the effect is a likely to endanger life or cause serious harm. The penalty for this offence is consistent with other provisions where the risk of serious harm can be shown.

The bill also updates the definition of ‘Commonwealth aerodrome’ in the Crimes (Aviation) Act to replace a repealed cross-reference and to make clear the airports to which the offences in the act apply.

Consultations have been held with key stakeholders on the amendments to the Crimes (Aviation) Act, including airlines, airports and unions. The responses that have been received have been overwhelmingly supportive and welcoming of these measures that they are seen as an improvement to our existing aviation security regime.

The decision to accept the ‘Federal Audit of Police Capabilities’ recommendation to move to an ‘All-In’ policing model will result in the AFP becoming responsible for airport policing and security at Australia’s 11 major airports.

This bill contains amendments that support the move towards an ‘All-In’ policing and security model. It amends two acts—the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979—that impact on the powers of AFP members to investigate offences when committed at certain airports.

The amendments to the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act overcome a technical anomaly in the act that prevented the AFP from using some of their standard arrest and search powers for state offences that occur at the airports, which are classified as Commonwealth places.

For example, if an assault or theft occurs at Sydney or Melbourne airport, this is a state offence that applies as Commonwealth law because these are Commonwealth places. These amendments will ensure standard AFP powers—such as arrest and search—are available in response. Handling of these cases is also governed by protocols between the AFP and state and territory police.

The amendment to the AFP Act removes doubt as to the legal basis for AFP members to be appointed as members or special constables of state and territory police forces. The bill also makes clear the legal basis for AFP members to be appointed as members of police forces or other law enforcement agencies of foreign countries.

Conferral of special constable status is an important tool for cooperation between police forces, and gives a member of a force the powers of another police force, subject to appropriate controls and accountabilities.

Special arrangements will be required for Cairns Airport, which is not a Commonwealth place, and this has been raised with the Queensland government.

The government has moved to strengthen aviation security in Australia, through changes to the arrangements that are in place, through the funding that is provided, and though cooperation with other countries, states and territories, and the private sector.

This bill represents a further strengthening of Australia’s aviation security regime and will ensure that Australia’s law enforcement agencies are supported in their work to meet the complex challenges of policing in the airport environment.

I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to speak on the Aviation Crimes and Policing Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011]. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the existing framework surrounding Australia’s international and domestic aviation security regime by ensuring that aviation related crimes carry appropriate severe penalties and by making sure that an appropriate range of offences are applicable.

Large numbers of people pass through our airports every day. For example, Sydney airport is the busiest in Australia and handles approximately 30 million passengers each year. Of course, people in our profession are very well aware of the state of our airports. Such large volumes present potential targets for terrorism and other forms of organised crime, due to the number of people located in a very small area. Likewise, the high concentration of people on large airliners, the potential high death rate with attacks on aircraft and the ability to use a hijacked plane as a lethal weapon have proved an alluring target for terrorism over the years.

It is the role of the government to ensure that aviation security attempts to thwart would-be attackers from bringing weapons or bombs into the airport. Aviation security is designed to safeguard Australia’s civil aviation operations against acts of unlawful terrorism. It is designed to protect the airport from attacks and criminal activity, to protect the aircraft from attack and to reassure the travelling public that they are safe.

As mentioned in the Bills Digest, since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, aviation security, including at airports, has been a significant issue in Australia’s antiterrorism and law enforcement efforts. To address the new and evolving security threats of the 21st century, the former coalition government invited aviation security expert Sir John Wheeler to undertake a review of aviation security in Australia. The subsequent Wheeler report, released in 2005, made 17 recommendations, including recommendations for regional airports. Following the report’s release, the federal government implemented all 17 of those recommendations.

Under the amendments in this bill, the penalties in the act will fall within four tiers. The severity of the penalty in each tier corresponds with the type of offence falling within each tier. Tier 1, which provides for life imprisonment—the most severe maximum penalty—will continue to apply for offences such as hijacking or destroying an aircraft whilst it is in flight. The attempted terrorist bombing of the American airline flight NW253 would have fallen within that tier if it had occurred on an Australian interstate or overseas flight. Under tier 2, a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment will apply to very serious offences that pose danger or cause harm to whole groups of people, such as endangering an aircraft whilst in flight. The offences in this tier have had their maximum penalties raised from either seven, 10 or 15 years. Under tier 3, a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment will apply to offences that are generally against aircraft or aviation environments, such as disrupting a major airport or destroying its facilities. These offences currently carry maximum penalties of seven or 10 years. Finally, tier 4 provides for imprisonment for up to 10 years. This tier applies to offences such as hoaxes and taking control of an aircraft, which currently carry maximum penalties of two to 10 years. For example, making a bomb threat to an airport would constitute such an offence.

The amendments also support the move from the current unified policing model, which is the state and territory police and AFP hybrid model, to an ‘all-in’ policing and security model at airports whereby the AFP will be responsible for policing Australia’s 11 major airports. Under these changes, the AFP will take full control of the community policing role at these 11 airports, replacing the hybrid model involving the AFP and state and territory police. The AFP will also move to a ‘fully sworn’ presence so that all AFP personnel deployed at an airport will have the same training and powers. The transition will be over a three- to five-year period. The ‘all-in’ model is an outcome recommended by the Federal Audit of Police Capabilities, which was conducted by Mr Roger Beale in 2009.

The coalition fully supports these measures, which are designed to ensure the safety and integrity of our airports and aviation facilities. We regard this legislation as carrying on the work of reform that was conducted during the course of the Howard government and that initially dealt with the increased threat level at our airports and on aeroplanes. Accordingly, we are pleased to support the passage of the bill through the House.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on this occasion to add my comments on the Aviation Crimes and Policing Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011]. May I say from the outset that the government is strongly committed to strengthening aviation security in Australia. This commitment is the driver for these amendments. They come after a comprehensive review by the Attorney-General’s Department. The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the existing legislative framework surrounding Australia’s international and domestic aviation security regime. The government has enhanced the Australian Federal Police’s role at Australia’s 11 major airports, provided significant funding for a range of aviation security related initiatives and worked closely with the states and territories, other countries and the aviation sector. The government has also consulted with key stakeholders to make sure we get this right.

In the federal budget, the government provided $759.4 million over the next four years for policing at Australian airports. The funding supports the AFP presence at Australia’s 11 major airports, its intelligence gathering and investigation capability as well as its Regional Rapid Deployment Team capacity and Air Security Officer Program. On 9 February 2010 the Prime Minister announced a series of measures to strengthen international and domestic aviation security totalling $200 million. These measures include $17.8 million to increase the number of firearms and explosive detection dogs at major international airports by 50 per cent; $12.3 million for 2010-11 to maintain the AFP presence at major airports; and $24.9 million for Customs and Border Protection to undertake a further phase of the Enhanced Passenger Assessment and Clearance Program. This demonstrates the Labor government’s commitment to aviation security. These are measures that can give Australians peace of mind.

Looking at the specifics of this legislation, the amendments in this bill include three new offences to be inserted in the act. The first new offence is assaulting a crew member, which will carry a maximum penalty of 10 years. The second, reckless endangerment of the safety of an aircraft, is an action likely to endanger life or cause serious harm. The third offence is directed against having dangerous goods onboard an aircraft that are likely to endanger life or cause serious harm. This will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of this offence.

The internal review by the Attorney-General’s Department indicated that there are a number of penalties in the act as it stands that do not reflect the seriousness of these offences. For example, under the Criminal Code a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment could apply to a person who is found guilty of making threats to contaminate goods. In comparison, under the existing provisions of the Crimes (Aviation) Act, a person who makes a bomb threat could only be imprisoned for a maximum of two years. This is a very low penalty given the very serious disruption and potential danger that such a hoax could create—for example, if a flight is redirected as a result or if an airport has to be evacuated. The revised penalties are a very important factor in this bill and address the inconsistencies we currently face.

The penalties in the act have four distinct tiers ranging from life imprisonment for serious offences such as hijacking or destroying an aircraft in flight to tier 4, which includes general offences and much shorter imprisonment terms. Attacks and threats put lives at risk, cause great distress and impose unnecessary burdens on our aviation industry. This is why these arrangements are so important. These crimes not only cause great distress and inconvenience but can also compromise public safety. The Australian Federal Police, other agencies and the aviation sector continue to meet the complex challenges and threats, but they need to be supported by up-to-date laws with penalties that provide a deterrent and that recognise the seriousness of aviation related crimes. The AFP also need to be able to use their powers in the airport environment. As Minister Brendan O’Connor said in his second reading speech on these amendments:

The Australian Federal Police and other agencies continue to meet complex challenges and threats within the aviation environment. To do their work effectively, the AFP need to be supported by appropriate laws that provide deterrence and recognise the gravity of aviation-related crimes.

These changes do exactly that. This bill proposes a number of changes to the penalty provisions of the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991. The proposed increases to the penalty provisions in the Crimes (Aviation) Act will ensure that the maximum penalties that could be applied to aviation related offences are consistent with the current criminal law benchmarks. They also ensure that the penalties that apply reflect the serious nature of the crimes. The new offences are designed to cover gaps in the coverage of the existing offences under the Crimes (Aviation) Act. These offences were widely supported by the aviation sector during the consultation process. These are important changes that should not be delayed.

On 18 December 2009 the Minister for Home Affairs announced the government’s decision to accept the federal audit of police capabilities. The Beale review recommended a move to an ‘all-in’ policing model at Australia’s 11 major airports. Under the new arrangements, the AFP will become responsible for policing and security at these airports. This new model will be implemented over a period of three to five years in close consultation with the states and territories. The proposals in this bill relating to AFP powers are designed to support the move to an all-in policing and security model by ensuring that the AFP have access to a full range of their powers when investigating offences committed at certain airports.

To put all of this into perspective, our airports are busy places. In 2009, 33 million passengers moved through Sydney airport and more than 24 million passed through Tullamarine airport. We need to ensure the safety of workers and the people who pass through these airports. Clear, effective and strong laws are a key element in airport security. This amending legislation is crucial for Australian aviation security. The government’s highest priority is the safety and security of Australians. It is vital that we remain vigilant and take the steps that are necessary to protect Australian citizens and Australian interests. I commend the bill to the House and encourage those opposite to do the same.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aviation Crimes and Policing Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011] is a significant piece of legislation, aimed at securing Australia’s aviation sector from criminal misbehaviour and providing a clearer and stronger legislative framework for the policing of such crimes. I rise to add my voice to the strong bipartisan support for these measures.

Firstly, the Aviation Crimes and Policing Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011] provides for new and reviewed penalties for criminal acts at Australia’s 11 major airports. Clearly, there is an imperative to investigate suspected crimes with efficiency and without undue obstructions to AFP personnel. However, quite obviously there is also a need to find a suitable balance between the need to investigate and the rights of lawful passengers travelling by air to be allowed passage without unnecessary delay and inconvenience. This bill finds the balance.

People are understandably concerned for their safety when travelling by air. I am sure that, for many Australians, the experience of air travel can at times be a stressful and harrowing experience. This is particularly the case for those people unaccustomed to regular flying. That is not to say that Australians ought to be fearful; we have very safe aviation security processes already in place. But the experience of air travel is often very different from the daily life experience of many passengers. When travelling domestically, Australians should rightly be given every reassurance that the government takes their safety seriously.

In order to provide this reassurance it is important that the penalties for aviation crimes reflect community expectations of the seriousness of offences committed. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information noted, from an internal review by the Attorney-General’s Department, ‘It is inappropriate that acts creating significant distress such as bomb threats should be punished under an offence providing for merely two years imprisonment.’ In saying that, I recognise that oppressively harsh penalties are not desirable, either. Again, this bill’s tiered approach to the classification of offences finds the necessary balance. No doubt there is a difference between acts of hijacking and the harm resulting from hoaxes, for example. While this is not to deny the considerable concern and inconvenience which such a hoax may cause, this tiered approach does reflect what I believe to be a gradation of seriousness in such acts.

In addition to the offence provisions I have already spoken about, this bill creates a changed framework for policing operations and security at these airports. While it is important not to embrace changed procedures for the sake of changing procedures, the support for these changes attests the quality of these reforms. These reforms follow the 2009 federal audit of police capabilities, headed by Roger Beale AO. I welcome these changed police arrangements. It involves granting additional functions to Australian Federal Police personnel at these 11 major airports, overhauling the previous unified policing model approach to airport policing. It reflects the national nature of the risk at hand and the priority which ought to be given to the efficient management of policing duties.

The application of this bill to the major 11 domestic airports has direct relevance to commercial airlines in my electorate of Wannon. In addition to instilling confidence in our aviation security measures Australia wide, Wannon residents can feel assured that security when flying between Wannon and Adelaide has been strengthened by this bill. Air travel is as important to the people of Wannon as it is to people in other regions and the major cities of Australia. Aviation provides opportunities for leisure and business as well as an important way that families across Australia can enjoy regular contact.

Airline security is an issue I take most seriously. This bill finds the necessary balance between the need to ensure confidence in Australia’s airport security regime and the need to maintain penalties proportionate to the crimes concerned. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting these measures as appropriate in ensuring Australia’s aviation security and ensuring that Wannon residents can fly securely to one of their key destinations.

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

I thank the minister for coming.

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

The minister did not need to rush all that much, but it is good that he is backing me up here! I will always take these opportunities to speak on aviation security matters. Ever since I first graduated from the AFP College back in 1986 and then had postings with the AFP, which included at various times Sydney airport and then Perth airport, I have had a bit of an appreciation of some of the security issues in airports and the need for strong aviation security measures. So I will take this opportunity today to make some comments on those matters.

I would like to think, and I am sure, that aviation security has moved forward in leaps and bounds in the last 20 years. There is no doubt that it needed to do so in response to the threats that the world faces and that indeed Australia faces as well. When we had an AFP exercise back at the start of 1987 at Sydney airport, it was a very bizarre thing when people were rostered on for a no-notice security exercise. They turned out basically everyone they could get into uniform, so people were told several days before, ‘Make sure you’ve got a uniform so that we can bus you out to the airport.’ Maybe it was not very legitimate so far as the preparation for a no-notice exercise was concerned, but that was the way things happened in those days, in 1987. As I said, things have moved on.

I think things do need to move on, and I am sure that the minister will cover this to a degree today as well. The most concerning report today is from Sky News regarding those Australians or Australian residents who are currently missing, you might say—22 Australian citizens or residents have disappeared in Yemen in the last four months—and are strongly suspected of being in al-Qaeda training camps or in other camps to do with terrorist organisations in the subcontinent area. It is most concerning that we have traitors to this nation who are prepared to take up arms for all the bad things in the world. Of course, this is not the first time that this has occurred. I am sure that ASIO, ASIS, the government, of course, and—rest assured, I hope—all political sides have the right commitment to deal with those people when the time comes.

During my time in aviation security—from the absolute base level, you might say—in our day at Perth and Sydney airports we had patrol vehicles. We even had rostered locations so that we knew that, no matter which terminal an incident might be in, there was always someone there, whether it was in a secure area or out in a public area. There were always going to be personnel there who could react to incidents. I know that back in 1987 I made two arrests, one in relation to the possession of cannabis at the security control point for the Perth domestic terminal, and the other incident regarded drink-driving in the car park—not exactly the big issues but things that we dealt with at the time. Following those arrests, we went to court to deal with those things. It was an onerous task, with a full brief of evidence required for what was really pretty basic work by community policing standards.

I cannot help but feel that the circle is being completed again following the 2009 review of airport security and that the AFP are once again back in complete control of the airports, with the exception of the joint policing and agency effort concerning intelligence and the serious investigations. The community policing role is back with the AFP in the 11 major airports throughout Australia. Under the provisions of the Aviation Crimes and Policing Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [2011], in the future there will be joint aviation investigation and intelligence groups.

On the everyday policing responsibility, I have always believed that airport police need to have specific systems in place to facilitate the day-to-day processing of minor infringements, rather than have to go to court and produce that full brief of evidence I spoke about before. State police around the country probably feel that they labour under onerous responsibilities for the presentation of evidence—before magistrates particularly—and there is a need to try to streamline those. Especially in regard to the airports, it is important to have those processes in very good shape, but I am sure that the AFP in the modern age would have these basic considerations well and truly covered.

The other problem that I hope is covered concerns training. Although the AFP are the community police here in the ACT, I thought that sort of experience was lacking in the past in the federal airports. Certainly, when I was there, there were very few people who got transferred out of Canberra into the airport jobs, so a lot of people would spend almost their entire career in the AFP in one of the regions. For instance, in the Sydney eastern region there were some people who moved forward with the drug investigation and fraud squads, whilst others seemed to spend a lot of their time in the airports. In that uniformed role, there was not the frequency of criminal investigations that you would find in community policing in the cities by a state police force. The incidents were a little bit on the infrequent side, so there was a loss of continuity and a loss of experience—because incidents were fairly few and far between.

I would assume that the AFP has those sorts of considerations in place and that the influence and the training of the community-policing element of the AFP that exists here in Canberra would be able to make sure that the 11 major airports are well and truly covered by community-policing efforts. The point is that training is required, and then the maintenance of skills must occur. Therefore, there is a lot to be said for posting into airport positions a number of experienced community-policing sworn officers from the ACT. As I said before, that is something that I believe the AFP would cover in the modern age.

Being at the airport is one thing, but the police and, of course, Customs need the assets in order to be truly effective. They need access to both technology and traditional assets that are tried and true. In the reforms announced in December 2009, there were resources for the Enhanced Passenger Assessment and Clearance program as well as additional resources for advanced data analysis and risk profiling, and additional cargo screening and screening at certain regional airports.

As I said, the processes for community policing need to be in place, but modern laws also need to be in place to meet the changing threat environment. It is therefore without doubt that enhanced legislation is welcomed in a bipartisan way. I am very much in favour of sending clear messages about offences against aviation. As the minister said in June 2010, making a bomb threat should have a greater penalty these days than just two years in jail. We certainly welcome that change. In fact, this bill introduces tiers of penalties based on the severity of the offence and ranging from 10 years in jail through to life imprisonment.

Given that I have probably exceeded the time that I originally indicated that I would take, I will be brief in summary. What appeals to me in this legislation and a number of reforms that have taken place over the last 10 years and in other legislation that has come before the parliament is that the types of offences and the penalties involved are very important to send a clear message of deterrence. At the same time, the assets, skills and experience of personnel on the ground need to make sure that not only is the deterrence of penalties in place but also the deterrence of the certainty of being caught. So the intelligence aspect and the ability of the uniform and the non-uniform personnel at the airports need to be ready to go and capable of detecting, making arrests and dealing with people whether they are national security traitors, like those who have gone off for training with al-Qaeda or other groups, or whether they are just troublemakers within the airport area. The capacity needs to be there so that these people are caught quickly and dealt with appropriately. I thank the House for this opportunity and I welcome the bill.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Cowan for his personal insights into the bill and the history of aviation security, and indeed I thank the member for Stirling for his support and the member for Wannon and the member for Bass for their contributions.

The government's highest priority is the safety and security of all Australians and we are committed to a strong and effective aviation security regime for Australia. The AFP and other law enforcement agencies continue to meet complex challenges and threats within the aviation environment. This bill will modernise the laws relevant to aviation and airports and complements a number of other initiatives that have already been announced and implemented in the broader aviation security field. I thank members once again for their contribution to the debate and for their support of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

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

I congratulate the minister on his expeditious delivery of that summing up.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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