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

The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011 is designed to make a series of amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to enhance Australia's ability to respond to emerging threats and clarify existing provisions in the legislation.

The coalition in government had a strong record of securing Australia's borders by strengthening aviation security. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the coalition took action to restructure Australia's aviation security regulations and over time implemented sensible changes to respond to technological advances and the broader security environment.

We also undertook a range of new initiatives to help ensure that our borders were safe. We substantially upgraded the quarantine service, more than doubling it in one budget alone. We also increased inspections at airports and made sure that almost 100 per cent of passengers coming into Australia went through a proper customs and quarantine check and therefore we could be confident that our borders were secure.

Unfortunately, since the election of the Labor government, many of those measures have been eroded and last night's budget was no exception. Unfortunately, the government is continuing to reduce its investment in our borders and therefore exposing us to risks: quarantine risks, security risks and of course the risks of importation into this country of products and items that we do not want. Last night's budget imposed significant reductions on most of the border protection services: Customs, ASIO and even the Federal Police. This does not reflect a government that is serious about security. It comes into this chamber with amendments to transport security arrangements while, at the same time, it is eroding the investment in border protection services.

There has been particular concern about the running down of the number of people in and expenditure on quarantine. We now have a situation where the government has insufficient funds to be able to deal with disease incursions into our country. The small allocation that was in the budget will go nowhere near dealing with the serious issues associated with the eradication of pests that have come into this country since the election of the Labor government. We also have to be concerned about the real lack of commitment to biosecurity issues and the associated risks to our environment, agricultural production and our way of life when pest and disease incursions occur in Australia.

The government has lost its way in this area. It is a low priority for them and, unfortunately, the country will pay a very high price for this carelessness. Once, almost all passengers arriving in Australia could expect to have to go through inspections on arrival at our airports. Now many are simply waved through, because the government has so cut the numbers of Customs officers available on the front line that it is simply no longer possible to undertake the inspections that are really necessary if we are serious about these kinds of issues.

So, on the one hand, the government talks its rhetoric, but, on the other hand, has been cutting the services that can actually deliver better security. On top of that, of course, this budget has sapped funds from all sections in border security to try and fund the enormous cost overruns—perhaps $1.9 billion—that are a result of the influx of asylum seekers. Labor's inability to manage our borders and secure our nation is a significant threat to our future. It is disappointing, therefore, that the government is not prepared to devote the resources that are necessary to deal with these issues properly. They have got the policies wrong and now they have not got the resources to be able to administer them.

The soft approach that they are taking in relation to biosecurity issues—allowing imports from countries where diseases are prominent without taking appropriate measures to ensure that Australian industries are protected—is shameful. Frankly, it is shameful. And now there is the backdown in relation to New Zealand apples, which will effectively allow New Zealand apples to come into Australia without any special criteria at all to deal with fire blight. This disease has been the threat to the Australian apple and pear industry for generations. We have had tough rules to make sure that these diseases do not come to Australia and now the Labor government has agreed to protocols which make no different provisions for export of New Zealand apples to Australia than for countries that do have fire blight. There are no special arrangements at all. I think that, again, is Labor asleep at the wheel—or it just does not care and is more interested in making friends around the world and getting a seat on the Security Council than in actually looking after the interests of our country.

So on the one hand, there is talk about the importance of security through legislation of this nature. But in the really important things—the things that really matter—Labor is not prepared to devote the resources or make the appropriate policy decisions which will help secure the cargo coming into this country and make sure that our country is kept safe from and free of pests and diseases and security risks.

This bill implements some of the measures that were announced in the aviation white paper released in December 2009. The coalition has generally supported the measures put forward in the white paper in relation to aviation security as a logical progression of the Wheeler review of aviation security, which was completed by the former coalition government in 2005.

The bill is not major in its consequences. It makes four amendments. Firstly, the bill amends the definition of 'aviation industry participant' in the act to include accredited air cargo agents. The act distinguishes between registered air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents. AACAs include smaller operators involved in the aviation industry who have less complex business operations, including couriers and contract drivers. Currently the AACAs are not defined as aviation industry participants, which means they are not subject to the same level of obligations that applies to RACAs in times of heightened security. Importantly, AACAs are currently not subject to special security directions. In late October 2010, terrorists operating from Yemen attempted unsuccessfully to send explosive devices inside printers to the USA. In Australia, increased security requirements were implemented for cargo from Yemen and Somalia, using the special security directions. Including AACAs within the definition of an aviation industry participant will mean that they are also subject to special security directions and will allow for a more consistent response to security threats.

The amendments will also mean that AACAs must have a transport security program and will compel them to comply with incident reporting requirements. The burden on small business in having to develop and comply with these reporting requirements was a matter of concern to the opposition. These are small operators by definition. They are people who were previously not considered to be of such import in the chain that they needed to be included in the legislation. I accept that there is good reason to include in the legislation even those who may be just peripheral players, but it would be unfair if new legislation required the same kind of planning and regulations that apply to large businesses to also apply to these small operators. I have been assured that the burden on small business has been addressed, as the AACAs will complete an online application form which will automatically generate a transport security program which they can print off and keep for their reference—in other words, there will essentially be something on the shelf that they can use. We will need to monitor whether in fact that transport security program is relevant to their needs, is not unduly intrusive and delivers what is intended in relation to enhancing cargo security.

Secondly, the bill extends the validity of the RACA transport security programs to 31 December 2012 unless revised prior to that date or cancelled at an earlier date. This amendment is intended to ease the burden on industry and the department during the transition to the new arrangements. The transition will allow industry to determine which regulatory scheme is the most appropriate for their business, potentially therefore reducing compliance costs and streamlining arrangements for some of the participants.

Thirdly, this bill allows for a legislative instrument to prescribe security training requirements for RACAs and AACAs. This amendment is designed to ensure consistency in training outcomes and in doing so raise the skill level of AACAs and RACAs to increase security across the industry. Again, let me emphasise the importance of not imposing unduly restrictive and time-consuming training components on these very small operators. The reality is that we need to make sure that they know what their job is and they know what to look for, but one would hope that these skill assessments and training programs do not so eat into their time that these often battling businesses are unable to remain profitable because they spend all their time away at training programs. Business feels overloaded at the present time by all of its obligations to undertake training. Training is important, but you can be highly trained and end up with no business if there is not a recognition of the fact that this kind of thing intrudes into the working time of the people who are doing the training, and it therefore may affect their capacity to do their real job.

Allowing for a legislative instrument to prescribe the requirements, which will happen as a result of this legislation, rather than by notice, will increase transparency and allow for the scrutiny of the parliament of the prescribed levels of security training. That of course is the protection for small business if the department should adopt an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach on these matters.

Fourthly and finally, the bill makes two minor technical amendments, one to remove certification provisions to reflect industry practices and the other to clarify terminology by replacing the term 'freight' with the term 'cargo'. I do not think too many people would know the difference, but in reality this is one of the changes that is included in the minor technical amendments in this bill.

The matters before the main committee are relatively minor. It is typical of another tendency of the current government to introduce in almost every session a new amendment bill in relation to aviation security that deals with just trivial matters. I do not know why on earth they cannot get their act together and deal with all these things in a single piece of legislation. But I know that the minister, in his other role as Leader of the House, likes to get up at the end of the year and boast about the number of bills that have been passed by the parliament. This will be another one. It will pass with very little controversy, but why it was not included in last session's aviation security legislation, or the one that we will no doubt get in this session, is beyond me. If the objective is quantity rather than quality I do not think the government has got its priorities right.

The coalition supports the sensible evolution of aviation security and screening measures, provided the new measures are fully explained and overall security measures are not diminished. However, we need to not just concentrate on the regulatory regime and making sure it is right, although that is of course important, but the government must devote the necessary resources to rebuild the quarantine services they have stripped away and make sure that Customs has adequate resources to do the border protection work that it needs to do. We also need to ensure that security flights and surveillance of our oceans, which have been axed in this budget, are restored so that we can be confident that our nation is protected from threats to our security and so that our prized pest-free and disease-free status is maintained wherever possible.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the government I thank the member for Wide Bay, because, reading between the lines, I think he was trying to actually say that this government is maintaining a vigilance on these issues. I think he was complimentary of the fact that we do not take our eye off the ball when it comes to issues such as aviation security, particularly in respect to passenger and cargo movements. With the growing change that is occurring in that space I think the coalition is trying to say in a veiled way that not only do they support the carriage of this particular piece of legislation but also they are indebted to this government for being ever so vigilant on these issues. We are not simply putting them away and then having a big piece of legislation introduced every now and then. Instead we are doing things when it is required. This is an issue that is required.

I too support the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011. Aviation security is a concern to all Australians, regardless of whether you are going to be a passenger or whether you are running a small business, as the member for Wide Bay referred to. People are using air cargo more and more these days. It is increasingly becoming more efficient as a way of doing business. Australian consumers want their product quickly, and one of the issues associated with that is the speed of delivery; therefore, airfreight forwarding is one of the fast-growing sectors in the Australian marketplace.

I know a bit about that, because I have worked very closely with the aviation sector in my past—particularly the Sydney Airports Corporation. I know the amount of space that is required, not only for airfreight but for any additional berths for air cargo transporters now, which are rapidly becoming very common in our aviation space. That being the case, we must stay very much in tune with the fact that there are growing security issues associated with it.

As someone said a little facetiously about the member for Wide Bay, this is not a matter of sitting on your hands until you have enough to justify running a substantial document and saying that that is now the new documentation for this industry. We must be prepared to make amendments to finetune and to ensure that we stay ahead of the game when it comes to issues of transport security. Don't forget, it was only in late October that terrorists operating out of Yemen concealed improvised explosive devices inside a set of printers in an air cargo consignment that was destined for the United States. What occurred there was that people went onto an alert footing. The Australian government responded very quickly and took immediate action to protect the travelling public and the Australian aviation sector, strengthening measures against inbound cargo—in this case originating from Yemen and Somalia. That occurred through special security directions, as they are called, issued to the regulated air cargo agents, the RACAs. That worked very well. The product coming in required inbound screening—not only inbound screening but screening prior to being loaded.

This is where one of the problems exists. We are also talking in this space of air cargo groups referred to as accredited air cargo agents, AACAs. They are not the same as regulated air cargo agents. They are smaller, maybe irregular. So under current legislation these special directions were able to be issued, for instance as a result of the Yemeni incidents, to RACAs. The same directives were not able to be sent to accredited air cargo agents. That is obviously something that must be corrected. That is why this piece of legislation is going through now. Unlike the member for Wide Bay, who might want to feel comfortable and be able to sit back and wait until we accumulate a certain amount of issues before we do something, we know this is something that was very real in October 2010. It was very real, a determined and concerted attack using air cargo as the delivery device. As a consequence our agencies responded well, but they identified that there was an issue that needed to be tightened up, to put it beyond doubt—that all those receiving air cargo into this country should be subject to the same specifications. That has now occurred. The amendment is an important one. It fundamentally does four things: it improves Australia's capacity to respond to heightened security threats such as what occurred last October; it provides transitional arrangements to ease the regulatory burden on air cargo industry members while the new initiatives announced by the government in 2010 are enacted; it includes training requirements for the air cargo industry and improves the transparency and consistency of training amongst its members; and it also—almost as an efficiency measure—simplifies the air cargo clearance processes in this country.

This amendment is important as we as a government must do all that we can to deter and prevent unlawful interference with our aviation industry. The very nature of what we are dealing with means that amendments such as these are essential for us to stay on top of our game in the security environment. This is something the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement is currently looking at again in terms of air transport safety and, in their case, maritime transport safety. Arrangements are such that we are capable of preventing and disrupting not only terrorist acts but also vehicles for organised criminals. The Australian government, as I said, in the Yemeni incident did not waste any time. It responded very quickly and it did so to protect the Australian public and the aviation industry that accesses Australian airspace. Nobody would expect anything less in that regard.

This amendment also streamlines the importance of the systems that are in place by improving their transparency. It ensures that all players in the aviation cargo industry have the same training provisions and are subject to the same regulatory regime. Additionally, it provides for special security directions to be applied at times with consistency in times of heightened security.

Another important aspect is that this amendment aligns Australia's air cargo practice with best practice in the world. To align ourselves with best practice is to ensure that both the travelling public and those who rely on cargo for commercial purposes are protected, as is our country, as a consequence of ensuring that not only Australia but all countries work to achieve the best outcomes in this particular space. That has occurred.

This amendment was given rise to by an incident, a planned terrorist attack, in October 2010. That we reacted as best we could and discovered there were deficiencies within the regulations and have moved promptly to do something about that to protect the Australian travelling public as well as those involved in the aviation cargo sector should be something that is applauded, not something that the Opposition should waffle on about: apples coming from New Zealand or how you should hold a group of these together until you have got a big wad of documents to make a substantial change to legislation. We need to act and to act promptly in order to achieve proper outcomes for not only the travelling public but the Australian community at large. In closing, this piece of legislation will fundamentally increase flexibility in responding to heightened security threats to this country, it will reduce the regulatory burden and cost to industry members during their transition to the new air cargo security framework, it will allow for greater scrutiny, consistency and transparency in the training requirements of the air cargo industry sector and it will simplify technology for the industry and reduce confusion. It will ensure that we as a country are best positioned, according to the information that we have available to us at this stage, to protect Australia and the travelling public. It will also ensure that those who rely on the importation of air cargo are protected and are not affected by the vile efforts of those who use air cargo as another means of delivering terrorist threats throughout the world. I commend this piece of legislation. I think the amendment bill should be supported by all. It should be supported for the right reasons—that is, that this is an instance where the government has acted promptly to ensure that we have a suite of regulatory provisions in the security environment that is world's best practice. I commend the amendment bill to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011. The majority of legislation proposed by the government is ill-conceived and misguided, as we have seen, from GroceryWatch to pink batts to border protection. Just about everything they touch turns to a complete and utter shambles. As we witnessed last night with the budget, this mob would struggle to run a chook raffle. However, the coalition supports this bill, which demonstrates that on the very rare occasion when the government introduce a bill that will not damage our economic prosperity the coalition is prepared to support it.

Airfreight is essential to the world's economy. Every year, over 26 million tonnes of goods travel by airfreight around the world. In value, 30 per cent of all international trade in goods is carried by airfreight. No other means of transportation is better equipped to meet the economic realities of the future, where global supply chains and just-in-time logistics require companies to receive and ship greater quantities of goods more frequently, quickly and reliably over long distances. Australia, as an island continent with no land borders and geographically isolated from the major markets of the world, relies more heavily on efficient and competitive air services than any other country. Although airfreight represents less than one per cent of our nation's trade by volume, it makes up over 20 per cent by dollar value.

An efficient and competitive airfreight sector allows our nation to turn the tyranny of distance and our geographic isolation to our competitive advantage. Annually in Australia over 680,000 tonnes of airfreight are shipped, worth over $100 billion. An efficient and competitive airfreight sector also contributes significantly to the economic viability of passenger airlines, which are so vital to our tourism sector. The holds of passenger aircraft typically contain significant amounts of air cargo. Therefore, well-organised and economically efficient airfreight services are indispensable to the success of Australia's economy. However, there are risks to these efficient and competitive airfreight services. These risks are also a threat to our economic prosperity. These risks come from the threat of international terrorism, from anticompetitive practices and, of course, the delusional nonsense of a tax on carbon dioxide. In recent years we have seen this danger to the efficient and competitive airfreight industry of anticompetitive practices such as price fixing and price discrimination. Only late last year the European Union fined 11 airlines, including Qantas, a total of €1 billion for forming a global cartel for fixing airfreight prices. This illegal price-fixing cartel conspired to fix fuel surcharges to ensure that, worldwide, airfreight carriers imposed a flat surcharge per kilo on all shipments. The cartel members also extended their illegal activities by conspiring to introduce a security surcharge and refusing to pay commissions.

In Europe, the Air France group received the biggest fine of €340 million. British Airways was fined €104 million, Singapore Airlines was fined €75 million, Cathay Pacific was fined €57 million and Qantas was fined €8.8 million. In addition, in the US further fines totalling US$1.5 billion were levied against airlines that acknowledged fixing fuel surcharges. In the US, Qantas agreed to pay a US$26.5 million settlement to resolve their liability under a US class action, and they still face a further $200 million class action in Australia. Hopefully, with these penalties, the threat of cartel conduct in the airfreight industry has diminished.

Another threat to our airfreight industry is the threat of anticompetitive price discrimination. Put simply, price discrimination occurs when the same product is sold to different buyers in competition with each other at prices where the difference is not reflected in costs. The dangers of price discrimination to the airfreight industry were evidenced about 10 years ago in three cases in Europe, known as the Spanish, Belgian and Portuguese airport cases. These cases were brought under article 82(c) of the EC Treaty, which makes it unlawful to apply:

… dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage.

While Europe and the USA also have these protections against price discrimination, Australia, under our competition laws, does not. So, until this loophole is closed in our competition laws, the risk of anticompetitive price discrimination remains a threat to the Australian airfreight industry.

The other major threat to an efficient and competitive airfreight industry is the threat of international terrorism. This threat of terrorism in Australia remains real. Only last December a group of Islamic extremists were found guilty by a jury of conspiring to plan a terrorist attack on the Holsworthy Army base in New South Wales, which is part of the electorate that I represent, the seat of Hughes. The jury heard that, armed with high-powered military weapons, this group planned to storm the lightly guarded base, shooting anyone in their sights until they were gunned down themselves or captured. The ringleader was seen on CCTV arriving at the Holsworthy railway station—a station which I often go to to give handouts to the many thousands of commuters who go through it every morning—walking along the perimeter fence of the Army base and approaching the gatehouse, which was manned only by unarmed private security guards. This attack was foiled only by the brilliant investigative work of our police, which potentially saved hundreds of lives.

The threat of international terrorism to the efficient airfreight sector was also highlighted last October, when two bombs containing powerful explosives were sent from Yemen through FedEx and UPS. They were bound for the US but were intercepted by security officials in the UK and Dubai. Qatar Airways confirmed that the bombs intercepted in Dubai had actually been transported on two of its passenger jets, the first from Yemen to Doha and then from Dubai on a second plane. The first leg would have seen these bombs on an Airbus A320 and on the second leg they would have been on an Airbus A320 or a Boeing 777. The devices seized in the UK also went via Dubai and are believed to have passed through Cologne airport in Germany before being intercepted in the UK. Both parcels were addressed to synagogues in Chicago, although it is believed that the bombs were meant to go off on the aircraft rather than at their destinations. Again, this plot was foiled by the work of our intelligence agencies.

The air parcel bombs addressed to synagogues in Chicago have highlighted a major vulnerability in the global aviation sector: our airfreight, where the checks are far less stringent than in passenger travel, even though the larger percentage of freight is carried on world passenger jets. In my previous occupation I was the export management for our company and I would often have to take goods down to Sydney Airport. I was often concerned and surprised by how easy it was to get goods on board a plane, although I was also concerned that additional security requirements could delay the procedure and hold up international trade. From these security threats we know that it is human nature that each new security incident promotes a desire to introduce yet more security measures. But good security is all about comprehensive threat assessment and balanced risk management, not the elimination of every conceivable risk. We must also remember that terrorists measure their success by how much we overreact to their provocations. Therefore, a reasoned and coordinated response to this threat is essential.

Security comes at a cost already measured in tens of billions of dollars to the world economy for aviation alone, and any new security procedures can be justified only when it is demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the additional burdens they impose on a society. Any new air cargo security programs need to be driven by a supply chain approach so that everyone from the manufacturer of the goods to the airport is responsible for the security of shipments. That is why the coalition is happy to support this bill. The Accredited Air Cargo Agent Scheme extends the existing Regulated Air Cargo Agent Scheme to cover small operators with less complex business operations, such as couriers and contract drivers.

The coalition believes this bill gets the balance right to strengthen our air security, and we give our support to this bill. However, we must monitor the practical effects of the bill to ensure that small business is not unduly restricted by additional regulations which unnecessarily burden the efficient operation of our air freight industry, which is so vital to our ongoing economic prosperity.

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

I rise also to support the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011. The bill is designed to make a series of mainly technical amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to enhance Australia's ability to respond to emerging threats in aviation security and clarify existing provisions. The bill flows on from the action which was taken by the coalition after September 11, 2001, when we took necessary action to improve aviation security following the dreadful and appalling acts which occurred on that day. The importance of aviation security really hit home after 2001, and we saw that on two fronts. One is that the globe in many ways came to a standstill once it was realised that world aviation could be threatened by people who wanted to do nothing else but disrupt global air travel and to achieve nothing else but disrupt world trade completely. The importance of our aviation sector to global trade can never be underestimated. A country like Australia is wholly dependent on being able to export at least 80 per cent of what it produces, so if we cannot guarantee that those goods and services can access overseas markets by aviation then we put a hole in our national economy. Roughly 30 per cent of what we produce is reliant, in one way or another, on the aviation sector to get to global markets. Our tourism sector also is wholly reliant on our aviation sector. If we cannot allow Australians to travel overseas or, equally important, to enable foreign visitors to reach our shores, that also potentially and realistically puts a huge hole in the Australian economy.

But we have to make sure that in taking security measures in aviation we get the balance right. I think that, fortunately, this bill does that. We saw that some of the requirements put in place by the US and the European Union in the months that followed September 11 did have consequences for Australia's commercial interests. We have to plan so that, if there are future security issues in aviation, we make sure that the measures are balanced so that they do not impact on our commercial interests and fail to achieve the goals which they set out to do in our aviation security.

Following the actions that the coalition took after September 11, in February 2010 the Labor government announced the Strengthening Aviation Security Initiative, which consisted of a number of measures designed to strengthen Australia's international and domestic security against emerging threats. It highlighted that the government would invest $200 million in new and improved security technologies, including increased policing at airports and enhanced security procedures, as well as strengthened international cooperation. The announcement included $54.2 million for the establishment of a regulated shipper scheme and funding to assist industry to procure approximate examination technology such as X-ray and explosive trace detection equipment to secure air cargo.

The coalition has previously supported other measures in this package when they have come before the parliament, including the introduction of body scanners facilitated by the Customs Amendment (Export Controls and Other Measures) Bill. That is why we are also happy to support this bill. The announcement in February last year built on the enhanced aviation measures outlined in the government's aviation white paper, Flight path to the future, which was released in December. Once again, the coalition, correctly, generally endorsed this white paper because it was a logical progression of the Wheeler review of aviation, which was set up and completed by the former coalition government in 2005. I must say that it is incredibly pleasing to see that both sides of the House have proceeded in such a sensible and formal way with these measures. It shows that on this issue we can all work together to make sure that the aviation industry is securely protected. In the support we saw for the Wheeler review, followed by the aviation white paper, we have shown correctly that we are working well together on this issue. This is an important issue. In late October of last year we saw that cargo from Yemen had improvised explosive devices concealed inside printers. They were sent as air cargo consignments to the USA. If those devices had been detonated we once again could have seen the aviation sector grind to a halt, bringing with it all the economic and personal consequences that go with that.

In Australia the government increased security requirements for cargo from Yemen and Somalia, using the relevant acts. The situation demonstrated that we do have the ability to respond quickly. That is very pleasing given all the work that has gone on from both sides of the House on this issue.

This bill contains four measures designed to improve Australia's aviation security regime. The first amends the definition of 'aviation industry participant' to include accredited air cargo agents. This is a logical inclusion and once again one that we on this side support. Accredited air cargo agents include smaller operators involved in the aviation industry who have less complex business operations, such as couriers and contact drivers. By including them within the definition, they will be required to have a transport security program and, importantly, it will ensure consistent and coordinated responses across the industry to special security directions. It will also compel them to comply with incident reporting requirements.

The second part of the bill refers to and extends the validity of regulated air cargo agent transport security programs. Once again, this is fairly straightforward in that the amendment is intended to ease the burden on industry participants and the department during the transition to the new air cargo security framework. The transitional provision will allow the industry to determine the most appropriate regulatory scheme for their business, reduce compliance costs and streamline arrangements, all of which is to be applauded.

The third allows for a legislative instrument to prescribe security training requirements. Allowing for a legislative instrument to prescribe requirements rather than by notice will increase transparency and allow for the scrutiny of parliament of the prescribed levels of security training. It is a sensible provision, especially in the fact that it allows parliament some oversight.

Fourthly, the bill makes two minor technical amendments. It removes certification provisions to reflect current operational practices already applied in the industry. Secondly, the bill replaces the term 'freight' with the term 'cargo', which is more relevant for industry participants. The term 'cargo' is used in other parts of the bill, so this amendment makes terminology more consistent throughout the bill.

This bill is supported by the coalition. We recognise the importance of aviation security. It obviously has consequences for the security of all Australian citizens. It is important for the flow of commerce, both to and from Australia. It is also vital to our tourism sector. I endorse this bill.

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

I thank members for their comments and contributions to the debate on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011; indeed, I thank all members for their support of this legislation. Aviation security is something that should not be a partisan issue. It is important that we recognise that there are threats to our national security. There are people who would want to do us harm. It is vital that we have a debate in this parliament. The government is showing leadership on this issue by producing a comprehensive plan through the aviation white paper, which, I might inform members, is regarded highly, as it was when I had meetings in the UK at the time of the Yemeni package and threat that was mentioned by the member for Wannon. I was in London at that time and was able to meet with the head of transport security in London. We immediately put in place restrictions. But also the context of what we are doing here, the aviation white paper, is very highly regarded across the world.

Indeed, just last month I attended in Singapore an invitation-only meeting of IATA that looked at the range of issues. There were industry leaders. There were only two ministers present: the minister for Singapore and I, as the Australian minister. It was a great honour to our country and to me to be able to represent Australia at such a forum. Next month, I will be attending the IATA General Assembly, where there will be that cross-dialogue occurring to ensure that we have that international cooperation. We here in Australia need to do everything within our power to ensure that security and safety are the No. 1 priorities when it comes to aviation and that we get that right before we talk about other issues. But we also need to acknowledge and understand that, when it comes to security issues, we need international cooperation and we need to work in that global context with our regional neighbours.

I thank those members who have made a contribution to this debate and I thank them for their support of this bill. This is important legislation. It will enhance the security of the air cargo supply chain. The Australian government has a specific role in relation to transport and supply chain security. The Office of Transport Security in the Department of Infrastructure and Transport regulates the security arrangements in the transport industry to minimise the risk of unlawful interference that could otherwise result in catastrophic consequences.

The legislative framework of Australia's aviation security regime consists of a suite of measures to deter, detect and prevent acts of unlawful interference with aviation. The framework is constantly reviewed to ensure it adapts to evolving threats to the security of the Australian aviation industry. The security of air cargo is critical to ensuring Australia's compliance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation—the Chicago Convention—and also to ensuring 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. Total air cargo exports for Australia in 2008 were valued at $31 billion. Air cargo is mostly lightweight high-value goods requiring urgent delivery. The Australian air cargo industry is a diverse and multimodal environment. The handling and processing of air cargo involves a complex web of multiple operators. The air cargo industry's ability to respond quickly to security threats to the transport of goods and services domestically and internationally is crucial. The government believes that security measures applied throughout the supply chain are the most effective and efficient way to manage security. I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for this sensible approach.

The bill contains four key amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to simplify and strengthen the existing security regulatory framework for supply chain security. The proposed amendments increase flexibility and responsiveness to situations of heightened security threat; reduce the regulatory burden and cost to industry members during the progressive transition to the new air cargo security framework; allow for greater scrutiny, consistency and transparency of training requirements for air cargo industry members; and simplify terminology appropriate to industry practices and procedures.

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, parity with advancements in security arrangements applied by international counterparts and changes in the level of threat. 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.