Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have to say that it was with continued disappointment that I listened to the contribution from the other side. They stand to have originally stated that they supported the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006and why wouldn’t you? It is a very non-contentious piece of legislation that simply adds once again to the very strong security of our transportation system—in this case, the aviation system. I am again very disappointed that they see it as an opportunity to throw absolutely baseless barbs at the government on what I—and most Australians—consider our impeccable record.

As most parliamentarians would know, not only through wide reading but also, simply, because they travel a great deal, the security upgrades at regional airports are not, as the senator opposite has indicated, in need of a great deal of upgrading and cause for worry and concern; perhaps cause to not even travel. I think it is baseless scaremongering. This government has a great deal to be proud of.

There are some very strict procedures in place at every regional airport to prevent the mixing of screened and unscreened passengers. I travelled extensively in regional and rural Australia before I came to this place, and before 1996, and I can tell you that no-one is in any doubt that this system has been vastly improved—not only with improvements since this government came to power but also in an international context. The way that we have improved the security system of baggage handling and airport security generally is the envy of the world. They are often looking to us to ensure that the sorts of changes that they make to their own systems reflect a system that works very well for us in Australia. Passengers that disembark from a regional service and leave the terminal cannot access a sterile area without submitting themselves again for screening, which is one example of where those opposite say, ‘Well, nothing has been done.’ But if you travel in regional and rural Australia—it may appear to be stating the obvious—you will see how this government has put in a huge effort to ensure that not only do we travel safely but also there is an appearance of that.

I do not see vast crowds of nervous people at airports. In fact, every day as we increase those security measures commensurate with the assessment of the current risk to security—and they do go up—I see people showing a bit of frustration. There is certainly not a fear but there is a bit of a frustration about the continued increasing levels of security. It is tremendous to note that we have managed to achieve this increased security level without putting up the price of regional travel. Coming from an electorate that contains a lot of people that travel regionally, I recognise the importance of keeping those costs down. That is why I think that this government’s approach of ensuring the infrastructure has been dealt with in the way it has is a testament to good government.

This bill amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to improve across the board the operational arrangements for aviation security in two principal areas: the regulation of cargo inspection and the handling of special events at the airports, which concerns what the industry calls airside security. You need to have mechanisms in place to ensure that for special events you can regulate to change the environment adjacent to the airports within particular spatial security areas. The amendments will, with regard to the special events, allow the special landside and airside event zones to be described in the same way as the existing arrangements currently allow landside and airside security zones to be described by the operators.

The security rules that will apply within the event zones can be tailored. There is the key: it is all about recognising that the operational needs of an airport have to be flexible. The amendments that this government has quite rightly put forward again reflect this operational need for flexibility. In both a business sense and an operational sense it would be wonderful to be able to say that planes fly in the same way with the same amount of people of the same height and with the same sorts of baggage requirements, but the reality is that airports have to cater for a whole range of different flexible needs. Certainly, as you, Mr Acting Deputy President Lightfoot, with your own experience in these matters would well know, many of the airports have a dual role of both civilian and defence. We need that multiplicity of zoning in the future and the flexibility to be able to deal with different operational environments.

The second area of amendment concerning cargo handling is designed to better allow for cargo to be managed under the Aviation Transport Security Act, the ATSA. The aim is not only to maintain the scope of the current cargo scheme but also to create the framework in which a layered approach to cargo security can be introduced more effectively than under the current legislative arrangement.