Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too would like to address a few brief comments to the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. Our nation’s security is an increasingly important issue. That is attested to by the fact that the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, of which I am a member and which conducted the inquiry into this bill, increasingly seems to be spending time on hearings to do with legislation relating to security not just at airports but also on our waterfront, whereas you would normally expect the committee to deal with things of a more agricultural nature. The nation’s security is something that the Australian Labor Party takes very seriously. The introduction of this legislation is a small step in the right direction towards strengthening our nation’s safety and security. The bill contains six groups of amendments: four to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and two to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

In 2005, several government agencies participated in a review conducted by Sir John Wheeler which culminated in the report entitled An independent review of airport security and policing for the government of Australia. The Wheeler report assessed the security of Australia’s airports and identified some areas where security could be improved. The report contained 17 recommendations, including the recommendation to review the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and relevant regulations, to ensure that the legislation encourages a culture of proactive and ongoing threat and risk assessment. Two years on, the government is beginning to implement some of those recommendations, but we have to ask: why has it taken so long, given that this is such an important issue for the nation?

I notice that the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, which has many aviation security personnel as members, made a submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill. In that submission, the union expressed its concern with the length of time the government has taken to implement the Wheeler report recommendations. We should heed the comments of the union which represents people working at the very front line of Australia’s airport security.

While Labor welcomes the bill and will support it, I would like to take the opportunity to outline some areas of concern. The changes made to the Aviation Transport Security Act include allowing exemption for the most senior dignitaries, their spouses and minors from aviation security screening. I am aware that there needs to be a balance between security requirements and passenger movements, and our international reputation. Indeed, as Senator O’Brien pointed out in his speech in the second reading debate, we need to be mindful of our international legal obligations. No-one disputes that airport security measures can, at times, be irritating to travellers as well as sometimes mystifying in their application. I think anybody who has been through an airport knows that you never know whether you are going to be picked to have your luggage examined by Customs or not. I understand the reasons for that, but it is sometimes mystifying as to who gets picked and who does not for the various components of both security screening and Customs investigation at the airport.

However, it is possible that exemptions will cause more problems than they are intended to solve. A number of questions need to be asked and answered. Who are considered to be the most senior dignitaries? Who will determine who those people are? Where will we draw the line? At a time when airport security is of such high importance, we must consider all the possible repercussions of such a change. Adelaide Airport Ltd, along with the Australian Airports Association, do not support the exemption of certain dignitaries from aviation security screening. I commend Adelaide Airport Ltd for again taking the time to make an important submission to yet another Senate inquiry into aviation.

As those opposed to the exemption provisions stated in their submissions, if anything dangerous that could threaten the safety of those within an airport or aircraft is planted on a so-called senior dignitary, we may not have the opportunity to identify the danger before it is too late. While some may see security screening as an invasion of privacy or an irritation—an invasion that a senior dignitary should not have to endure—the security of our nation is far more important. With exemptions, we need to ask: are we creating a gap in our security, a gap which could potentially be exploited?

The second amendment to the Aviation Security Act 2004 is a result of a recommendation made in the Wheeler report. It seeks to provide ‘more effective coverage of potential acts of unlawful interference with aviation’. Part of this will be providing certain Australian Customs officers with additional powers to provide immediate response to acts that could potentially interfere with aviation. It has been proposed that those eligible Customs officers will only be able to exercise the powers when a police officer is not immediately available, when quick action is required to prevent or stop a security event or when a person believed to have been involved in a security event needs to be detained. These changes, depending on how they are executed, could improve airport security significantly.

However, concern was expressed at the Senate committee inquiry about the lack of detail provided. Adelaide Airport Ltd, as well as the Australian Airports Association, wanted more detail with regard to who would be deemed ‘eligible customs officers’. Too much in this bill has been left to prescription by regulations which the parliament has not seen. Of course, regulations are not subject to the same initial scrutiny as primary legislation.

The remaining amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 enhance the current transport security program, bringing it into line with maritime security legislation. These changes are not controversial, as they seek to improve both aviation security and the administration of transport security programs.

A much needed change to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is the broadening of the offence of interfering with a crew member or performing an act which threatens the safety of the aircraft or a person on board. Currently, this offence is limited to persons who are on board an aircraft or within a security controlled airport. The proposed amendment will extend the coverage of the offence to include persons who are outside the aircraft and airport. As we have heard, the Senate committee heard evidence of people using lasers to interfere with aircraft, both when taking off and landing, and today there are newspaper reports of that situation happening to a pilot who was flying a plane from Canberra to Sydney last Friday. It is a very frightening development and very worrying for not just people who fly in aeroplanes but also the staff who work on them. Anything that can be done to prevent such ridiculous and dangerous behaviour needs to be done. Currently, persons who perpetrate those sorts of acts are not considered by the law to be committing an offence under the Civil Aviation Act, despite the dangers that they create. Labor welcomes the amendment, as it will increase the safety of those aboard aircrafts and within airports, and we hope that it will go some way to bringing the current situation with lasers to an end.

The second change to the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is the introduction of drug and alcohol programs among staff within the industry. Many of the submissions received by the Senate committee inquiry stated that there was little evidence of an alcohol and other drugs problem within the aviation industry. Nevertheless, such a change was still acceptable to those persons. As always, prevention is better than cure and, by creating a program designed to detect and assist those who work while under the influence, we may be preventing disasters. Safety-sensitive personnel, including the flight crew, cabin crew, flight instructors and baggage handlers, will all undergo alcohol and other drug testing. The responsibility for that testing will lie with both the civil aviation industry and CASA.

The Regional Aviation Association of Australia noted that their members with alcohol and other drug programs already in place have found the programs to be of great benefit and reported:

The alcohol and other drug programs proposed by CASA will emphasise the need for responsible behaviour in relation to the use of alcohol and other drugs, legal or otherwise, by firstly putting in place an educational and support program and also by creating the potential for offenders to be found out and removed from safety sensitive activities in the short term, and for repeat offenders, from the industry altogether. For the proposed legislation to be successful, both parts of the program are essential.

Labor will support the amendments, as we see our national security as a top priority. However, I would like it noted that we are concerned by the lack of detail made available to assist senators and members, and members of the aviation industry and the public, to consider the implications of the proposed legislation. In many respects, the bill is vague in its detail and, with so much of the detail being left to regulation, it is difficult to have complete confidence in the bill. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, of which I am also a member, has made comment about the inappropriate use of regulations and delegations in this bill and has sought advice from the minister as to the committee’s concerns.

I note that Senator O’Brien has moved an amendment on behalf of the opposition, which is an attempt to get the government to consult more widely about the implications of the bill and to monitor its implementation. Hopefully, this current government does not have much of a future. However, for the future that this government does have left, we can only hope it will make a concerted effort to draft detailed legislation so that the Senate committees and those persons and organisations that make an effort to contribute to Senate committee inquiries know exactly what they are commenting on. The impact and cost of legislation cannot be given proper consideration by committees or the Australian people if they are not given all the facts.