Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I'm rising today to convey the Greens' support for this disallowance of these regulations, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Security Controlled Airports) Regulations 2019. In considering whether the Greens were going to support the disallowance of these regulations, I basically was taking three issues into consideration. One: will these regulations actually make aviation and air travel safer? Two: if they do, then what are the costs of doing so and, as the debate tonight has already touched upon, who pays for those costs? Three: are these regulations—these new security arrangements, this solution that has now been quite a long time in the making—and the costs that they are going to impose upon regional airports fit for purpose in this new era that we are now in? It is absolutely certain that, in this COVID-19 era—and I actually won't say post-COVID, because I think it's going to be around for a long time—aviation is going to be very different. We are not going to be going back to as it was before.

Underlying all of this is—as it sounds like there is unanimous agreement across this chamber—that aviation is of fundamental importance, connecting regional communities with each other and connecting regional communities with the capital cities. It is critical for people who live, work and visit regional communities to have safe, efficient and affordable air travel. It's something that those of us who live in the cities take for granted—that we can travel affordably to other parts of our country. But I know that it's not something that can happen. The quote that Senator Patrick told us, of it being cheaper to get to Bali from Adelaide than it is to get to Whyalla, underlines the craziness and how the cost of aviation across this country is not fairly apportioned.

Going back to my three points on deciding whether we were going to support this disallowance: firstly, will these new security regulations actually make air travel safer? I certainly think having better screening at airports is great. You would think it is likely to make air travel from any airport that has these new screening procedures safer than it was before. But there are still regional airports around Australia that aren't going to have any screening. There are still airports where, because of the small throughput of passengers, the decision has been made that it's just not worth the cost impost to be putting this screening in. The passenger load is not high enough and the risk is considered to be low enough. But that raises the question: if you're actually trying to do damage and do harm, and you know which airports have screening, why wouldn't you actually go and board a plane from one of the airports that hasn't got screening?

The whole notion that putting in increased security at particular airports is going to make aviation safer overall is questionable. If we had a model that said, 'Yes, we are having screening at absolutely every airport,' then you could say, 'Yes, that is definitively going to make aviation safer.' In all of the considerations through committees—the RRAT committee and the various inquiries in which we've been talking about this—I am yet to be convinced and yet to see a watertight case that these new security measures are definitively going to make aviation that much safer.

Secondly, let's put that aside and say, 'Yes, it definitely will be safer.' Then what are the costs of doing so and who should pay for those costs? A risk assessment is made. When aircraft that carry over 40 passengers go through airports, those airports will have to have these security measures in place. We've heard that it's going to cost a million dollars a year in Whyalla. We've heard from Senator Davey that it will cost $30 per person in regional airports. There is a cost to doing so. What I had not heard until I heard it in this chamber in the last half an hour is how these costs are going to be apportioned fairly. Up until now, it has been said that the owners of the airports, which are usually local governments, are going to have to pay for these costs. And then those costs are going to be passed on to the travelling public, making already unaffordable regional air travel even less affordable.

I'm very interested to hear the contributions from our Nationals senators about what they have negotiated. I actually want to hear the announcement. Come on, tell us! What is the nationwide solution? What is the nationwide price that has been negotiated? What has been negotiated to show that regional Australians won't face disproportionate cost increases and that these costs won't be passed on unfairly? This is in an entirely new context in which we are considering this disallowance motion today. If they were really wanting to get all of this chamber to not support this disallowance, all of the information should have been put on the table. We should have heard an announcement from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister standing side by side today to say how the new cost arrangements were going to occur. I'm sure Senator Patrick might have considered withdrawing his disallowance motion. But we haven't heard that, so we just have to take it on trust, on faith, that somehow the Nationals have negotiated a better deal. I want to see that better deal, otherwise these new regulations are going to put an unjustifiable, huge cost impost on regional Australia. It will undermine the wonderful regional tourism attractions, the regional economic incentives and the desire to decentralise.

That brings me to my third point. In the hearing that the RRAT committee had last week we asked (a) if they have modelled what the cost is and (b) if they have modelled what the cost is in the COVID-19 environment. But it hasn't been done. Exactly what the economic impact of these extra costs is going to be has not been modelled. It certainly hasn't been modelled looking at it in the environment we are now going to be in. We know that aviation is not going to be the same as it was before. There's not going to be a quick snap back for aviation, with everybody flying again. Travelling regionally, nationally, internationally—there is a lot of shaking down to be done. It's going to be a whole new world we're looking at. Have they done the work on what the impact of these costs in this new, post-COVID-19 environment is going to be? No, they haven't; they haven't done that work. Given that, it seems to me that the only responsible thing to do is to not impose these extra costs on regional Australia. I would be very happy to see these regulations disallowed and then for the government to realise, 'Okay, we're going to have to think through this a bit more thoroughly and work out how to get these changes—how to make air travel safer, how to make air travel more affordable for people right across our country—in a more equitable way,' and that's the work that has not been done so far. That's the work that the Greens want to see being done to actually work out what is the future for aviation in Australia in a post-COVID environment. How do we apportion the costs fairly across the whole community? In the meantime, with that work not having been done, we are very happy to support disallowing these regulations.