Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a senator for Western Australia and a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, I spend a considerable amount of time frequenting airports in capital cities and regional towns, as well as remote airstrips, so the amendments to this bill are of great interest to me. With the enormous increase in aircraft movements and passenger numbers throughout Australia, it is imperative that we, as a government, ensure that those involved in the aviation industry, both in the air and on the ground, have every opportunity to work in a safe environment.

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 was referred to the rural and regional affairs and transport committee for inquiry on 21 June 2007 and was due to report on 30 July 2007—which it did. Nine submissions were received and five groups of witnesses appeared before the committee. There was general support across the aviation industry for those amendments to the act which enhance security. There was little support for the amendment granting exemptions from security clearance for certain dignitaries.

Of concern to the committee and those who provided submissions was the fact that many of the proposed amendments to the bill will be implemented through regulations which are yet to be drafted. As a member of the committee, I was most concerned that the unavailability of the proposed regulations made it very difficult to assess the implications of the proposed amendments, especially in the area of security exemptions for certain dignitaries and their families.

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 contains four sets of amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and two sets of amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988. These amendments are intended to strengthen security and safety in the Australian aviation industry. Aviation security continues to be a high priority for this government and constant review is needed to ensure the Australian aviation industry is responsive to changing threats to our security. The government takes aviation security extremely seriously and has invested more than $1.2 billion in aviation security since 11 September 2001.

The first amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 makes changes to transport security programs which will more closely align aviation security legislation with that of maritime security legislation and will give certain industry participants far greater flexibility during the transport security programs process. This amendment will improve the administration of transport security programs and enhance existing aviation security by allowing the aviation industry participant to request the cancellation of their transport security program. Examples of this could be discontinuance of a regular public transport service or operations from a particular airport; changes to the time frame needed to process applications for transport security programs; and more flexible approval arrangements for the life span of a transport security program.

The bill allows broader and more effective coverage of potential acts of unlawful interference with aviation, including additional powers for eligible Australian Customs officers who operate at security controlled airports. The amendment utilises eligible Customs officers at parts of the airport where uniformed police are unlikely to routinely visit but which are visited by Customs officers. The intention of the amendment is to complement, not replace, the law enforcement role. It is important to note that under item 19 of section 91 of the bill, a new paragraph, 91(1)(d), is to be inserted to make it clear that a person who is an airport security guard is not an eligible Customs officer. This ensures clear differentiation of the roles of eligible Customs officers from the roles of airport security guards and law enforcement officers. The additional powers given to eligible Customs officers include: stop and search provisions; requesting people to leave an aircraft, airport or an area or a zone of an airport; restraint and detention until the arrival of a law enforcement officer; and the removal of vehicles from an area or zone of an airport.

It is proposed that eligible Customs officers will only exercise these powers when a law enforcement officer is not immediately available, where prompt action is required to prevent a security event from developing or continuing or when intervention is necessary to detain persons believed to have been involved in a security event. The implementation of this recommendation demonstrates the commitment of the government to strengthening aviation security.

The bill also clarifies provisions which relate to the screening and clearing of dignitaries. The amendment will allow the regulations to specifically describe those dignitaries who are to be exempt from aviation security screening. The amendment will provide, through regulations, for the most senior dignitaries, their spouses and minors to be exempt from aviation security screening. Other dignitaries and VIPs will still be able to apply for an exemption on a case by case basis.

As mentioned earlier, members attending the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport hearings into this bill were particularly concerned about this amendment and spent a great deal of time clarifying this point with the Department of Transport and Regional Services. There was also considerable opposition from the industry participants, including Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd, Australian Airports Association and Adelaide Airport Ltd, to the granting of exemptions of any type. The committee was particularly interested to determine whether proposed changes to the legislation, allowing a particular class of person exemption from security screening, could create a dangerous precedent.

Australia has a great record in the area of airport security. The following incident, which was reported in an article in the West Australian on Saturday, 4 August, is worth mentioning to illustrate this, despite the embarrassing situation which occurred. It concerned Perth Airport and an overzealous security guard. The Prime Minister of Malta went through the screening process and he had a mobile phone in his pocket, so he was taken aside into a private room and actually frisked by a security guard. This caused a problem. The Australian government is very serious about its obligations and responsibilities to protect foreign dignitaries from harassment or impairment of dignity, whilst at the same time Australian airlines need to maintain the highest standards of security at airports to ensure the safety and security of the travelling public, including visiting dignitaries. That issue has been rectified. It shows that our security screening is working, but perhaps in that instance things could have been managed a little better. Security at airports is, of course, of great importance at this time with so many international dignitaries and their families visiting Australia for APEC.

During the Senate inquiry into the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, officers representing DOTARS told the committee that the amendment came about as a result of advice suggesting that Australia had not been meeting its international legal obligations in relation to the processing of visiting dignitaries. They went on to state that the changes would not involve a large number of people and that the amendment was only creating the power to grant an exemption. The fact that this power will be implemented through regulations which are yet to be drafted is of concern and, even with the department’s explanation, I know that other committee members share my concern about this amendment. Accordingly, we reported this concern in the report to the Senate, which was tabled out of session, on 30 July 2007.

The fourth amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 includes minor modifications to several existing provisions and a new provision to cover interference with the operations of a security controlled airport by a person who is outside the boundary of the airport. I think this is very important as our airport boundaries seem to be becoming more and more congested, with cars unable to get parking within the airport waiting on roads outside and also with the number of buildings that are being built on airport land adjacent to the airport. This unfortunately gives a lot more cover for any person that may be going to cause disruption.

Under new section 38B, regulations will be able to be made which prescribe offences with respect to activities that cause disruption of, or interference with, aviation or airport operations within the airport. This amendment also extends the coverage of the act to disruptive actions that take place outside the boundaries of a security controlled airport. The amendment is consistent with requirements from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, of which Australia is a member. Disruptive conduct within an airport includes making remarks about bombs in baggage at check-in or screening points and leaving items of baggage or parcels unattended within a terminal building. Another issue is check-in rage, caused through huge queues at our airports, with people becoming very frustrated trying to get luggage checked in and then having to queue again to go through the security screening. The check-in situation often gets out of hand at Perth domestic airport, with so much extra activity and only two security screens operating. I congratulate the staff involved in this area for their tolerance and patience in dealing with an almost impossible task.

I note an article published by the Kalgoorlie Miner on 20 July 2007 about a study commissioned by the Queensland University of Technology in conjunction with Brisbane Airport Corporation which will analyse airport data on the efficiency of passenger screening for prohibited items. The study will investigate whether the airport staff are prone to missing security threats because of the potential for distraction in busy airport terminals. It will also look at the suitability and personalities of staff who perform these duties, which are often very long and tedious. The article states:

Brisbane Airport Corporation operations manager Stephen Goodwin said the research would help the airport better understand the effectiveness of security screening.

“The aim of the results is to provide a safer, more secure airport,” he said.

This amendment also deals with disruptive conduct outside an airport, which can include directing light-emitting devices such as laser devices into the airport through or over the top of the airport’s perimeter fence. Senator O’Brien earlier referred to an article in the Australian which said:

A QANTAS pilot has been forced to take leave after having a laser beam shone in his eyes as he was coming in to land at Sydney airport.

The incident follows reports last week of a Qantas pilot hit by a laser beam while landing at Darwin airport. Both pilots were forced to travel as passengers on their return flights.

In a separate incident, a third pilot was also hit by a laser beam while landing at Sydney on Friday night. There have been 80 reported cases this year of lasers being directed at aircraft.

So I think that, under these circumstances, these amendments are very important. It is important to note that laser beams can reach aircraft from up to five kilometres away, making it very difficult for police to catch the offenders. Under the proposed changes to the Civil Aviation Act, individuals who direct lasers at aircraft may be jailed for up to two years, which I think is very important.