Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 in order to change the regulatory arrangements for aviation security by creating event zones that may be used for handling special events at an airport, by regulating the security and clearance processes for domestic and international cargo before it is taken on board an aircraft and by allowing the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services to approve alterations to an existing transport security program.

This bill aims to improve operational arrangements for aviation security in two specific areas: the regulation of cargo inspection and the handling of special events—for example, arrivals and departures at airports for APEC 2007 and the conduct of the Australian International Airshow at Avalon Airport in March 2007. The bill comprises four schedules to amend the principal act. Schedule 1 will improve the regulatory arrangements for airport security by creating event zones which may be used when an airport conducts an activity which is not part of its usual transport business.

Schedule 2 will create a new division 2A of part IV of the act to deal exclusively with how cargo is to be examined—to ensure it is safe to be carried by aircraft—and how it is to be cleared for air carriage. To safeguard against unlawful interference with aviation, the schedule also allows for the creation of two separate classes of cargo businesses: regulated air cargo agents and accredited air cargo agents. These two classes of cargo agents will be subject to regulations—to be designed in consultation with industry—for the purpose of intercepting cargo which could prove a threat to aviation during the time it is still in the transport chain prior to being loaded onto an aircraft.

Schedule 3 inserts amendments to permit the secretary of the department to approve alterations to existing transport security programs. This new alteration process will operate as a less formal alternative to the existing process, by which a program can only be changed by means of a formal revision. It is expected that the new alteration process will make it easier for an aviation industry participant to align simple changes in its business and operational practice with the requirements of the regulatory framework. Schedule 4 contains technical amendments.

The creation of event zones is a sensible recognition that a one size fits all approach to certain aspects of airport security is not appropriate. It is clear, as I mentioned earlier, that specialised events can and will be held at vastly different airports. Airports such as Avalon, which regularly hosts the Australian International Airshow, are vastly different from regional airports, which may host smaller events, and Australia’s international airports, which will, for example, greet foreign dignitaries next year for APEC. It is entirely appropriate that, where necessary, specialised security processes can be designed that will suit the local conditions.

In relation to cargo, it is well known that cargo inspection was an area of concern noted in the 2005 report by Sir John Wheeler into aviation security and policing. This matter was a focus in the submission by Labor to the Wheeler review. Labor welcomes these moves to improve screening for aviation cargo. This bill recognises that it is not appropriate to consider or classify the screening of cargo in the same manner as passengers or baggage are screened. By clarifying the requirements for cargo to be examined, certified and cleared, cargo security is improved in this bill.

I would have to say the current regime is unwieldy and places an unfair burden on small operators who seldom deal with air cargo. This bill will create a class of cargo operator known as an accredited air cargo agent. The conditions for this classification, I believe, will be set by regulation. The fact that cargo can pass through several hands or operators means that it is not appropriate for screening to be done exclusively at airports. This bill provides flexibility in the treatment of cargo and will address the current shortcomings where cargo is treated in the same way as a passenger. Relevant consultation with key stakeholders will be the key to making these changes work. Labor will be supporting this legislation, but we do so noting that in other areas of aviation security this government is falling down on the job.

I asked a question of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services on 16 June this year and received an answer quite recently. The question was about the passenger screening and baggage screening systems in place at airports such as Hobart, Alice Springs, Townsville, Newcastle—that is, Williamstown—Broome, Launceston, Norfolk Island, Hamilton Island, Port Hedland, Ayers Rock, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, Ballina, Coffs Harbour, Maroochydore, Proserpine, Devonport, Kalgoorlie, Kununurra, Rockhampton, Gove, Karratha, Mackay, Mount Isa, Burnie, Groote Eylandt, Mildura, Newman, Paraburdoo and Weipa. I asked how many had screening systems in place for passenger and carry-on luggage, and how many had checked baggage screening systems in place.

Of those airports, the airports of Devonport, Burnie, Groote Eylandt, Mildura and Weipa did not have passenger or carry-on luggage screening at all. Therefore, the majority had some form of screening. But in relation to checked-baggage screening—that is, the luggage that goes into the hold—only Norfolk Island and Christmas Island had checked-baggage screening systems in place. That is: all of the other airports, I was advised in the answer from the minister, had no means of screening the checked baggage that was placed in the holds of aircraft leaving those airports. So we have ascertained that something in excess of 66,000 regional flights a year carry the luggage of passengers unchecked. Millions of Australians, we suspect, are flying in aircraft without the benefit of those security measures. So now, approaching the fifth anniversary of September 11, what have we got? We have a massive hole in this nation’s aviation security system. It is clear that last year thousands upon thousands of passengers travelled from 11 regional airports around the country directly into Sydney with unscreened bags.

When he reviewed airport security, Sir John Wheeler said: ‘Regional and smaller airports demand more attention.’ And, frankly, these statistics indicate that the Prime Minister is not presenting the Australian people with factual information when he claims his government is doing everything to protect the travelling public, because, as I said, millions of Australian citizens are moving around our country in aircraft that are carrying unscreened baggage.

It really does worry me that the Prime Minister can look Australians in the eye and tell them that he is doing everything he can to protect them from terrorism. Labor wants to see all baggage on domestic and international flights screened at every Australian airport. Labor wants every staff member at every Australian airport to have an ASIC pass with adequate background security checks.

And it would help if Australia actually had a full-time Inspector of Transport Security looking at tasks such as regional airport security, because then that issue might get the attention it deserves. But unfortunately we have had a part-time Inspector of Transport Security for some time and, on quite a number of occasions, the person charged with that responsibility has been off doing another job and not doing the Inspector of Transport Security job at all.

Labor of course would have a Department of Homeland Security and that department would have the capacity to coordinate Australia’s security arrangements, including security at our airports. It is a crying shame that this government pretends that it is concerned with aviation security while it leaves these gaping holes in our aviation security network. It is time that the government acted but, expecting that it will not, Labor is firmly committed to rectifying this problem when we assume government after the next election.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

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

We are not resting on our laurels, Senator George Campbell. I appreciate that you must be very impressed with the changes we have made. We continue to improve the system and, of course, the wider Australian public are appreciative recipients of that leadership we apply in this matter.

Security responsibilities will have to be graduated to reflect the increasing association with aviation and imposed using the concept of the examination of all cargo in the end. This is similar to the existing provisions around screening because it allows the flexibility for the examination to take place before the cargo reaches the security controlled airport—again, the practicality of not waiting until you get to a security area before you examine it. We will now have a process where cargo can be examined in an area that has the capacity and amenities to provide for those things before we add the impost of extra activities within a very small area. This again shows the government’s flexibility, reflecting our wide knowledge in these matters.

In summary, the amendments are about tailoring and strengthening the security arrangements in a way that is consistent with the actual operational requirements of business. I am proud to say that this government is all about reflecting the need to provide a regulatory and operational environment that allows business to conduct their operations as seamlessly and effectively as possible. The wider beneficiaries are those Australians who travel and want to feel safe when they are travelling, but there is also the fact that there is no incumbent cost because of the efficiencies that business has in this matter.

These amendments would also allow for better aviation security outcomes in the future. They are a part of the Australian government’s ongoing commitment to securing the aviation industry. From an industry perspective, they want to see these amendments to the existing regulatory framework. This bill starts the process of enhancing the aviation security framework set out in the ATSA. This is quite a simple process. I am sad that those on the other side see this as an opportunity to belt government when they should be applauding their processes. The amendments we put forward today are fairly simple. They reflect the wishes of industry. The wishes of industry are that the government understand and recognise the imperative to continue to move forward and to provide a better regulatory environment for the security both of those people who travel on our airplanes and of the cargo, and to ensure that business has no further costs imposed on it. There are so many ways in which this government has made sure that we have put in place a strong aviation security regime across the board.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking in support of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006 I first of all congratulate my colleague Senator Nigel Scullion on a very erudite and clearly visioned contribution to this bill. I thank him for the contribution he has made.

This bill will improve the operational arrangements for aviation security in two areas: regulation of cargo inspection and handling of special events at airports. Those of us in this chamber who, perhaps, on average, fly more than most other Australians do, very much appreciate the complexities of transport security and the absolute necessity for it to be done in the most precise way, and I congratulate the minister and the government for their focus on aviation security over the last several years. A lot of smaller airports will be brought into the government’s security regime in the months and years ahead, and I understand that Palm Island, off the coast of Townsville, where I am based, is one of the airports that will be looked at for aviation security upgrades in the rollout of these enhancements in the years ahead.

Talking of Palm Island brings to mind the difficulties that the residents of Palm Island face in getting to and from the mainland. There is a barge that comes across from the island a couple of times a week, but the main and consistent method of travel is by aeroplane. For those senators who are not aware, Palm Island is an Aboriginal community about 20 minutes by plane off the coast of Townsville, between Townsville and Ingham. Many years ago some people, who in those days probably thought they were doing the right thing, collected groups of Aboriginal people from all over the state and set up the community on Palm Island, and the island has been an unfortunate and unhappy place ever since. There are traditional owners of the Palm Island group, but the main people on the islands are not the traditional owners; they are people from various clans and tribes right throughout the state. This has, of course, caused a lot of trouble over many years, but the community attempts to deal with the problems.

The Queensland government have imposed an alcohol management plan on the island, even though the island council, the elected people there—most of whom are Indigenous—had their own alcohol management plan which was working quite well. The state government came in and, without any consultation with the local people, did over the island council’s alcohol management plan and imposed their own. That has caused a lot of unhappiness amongst the people of Palm Island, not so much because of what the state government’s plan says but because their own plan, over which they had laboured, about which they had consulted and which they had got to a stage where they believed it was appropriate for the island—and many other people, including me, thought that as well—was cast aside by the Queensland state government without any consultation. That is something the people of Palm Island feel very poorly about. The island itself is one of those places in Queensland—and there are many—which keep getting promises from Premier Beattie and his ministers, but the promises are only for show. They engender a warm feeling for Mr Beattie and for the media who accompany him when he goes near the place, but when he leaves the action stops and a lot of the problems that should be addressed by the state government are never addressed.

I digress a little from the subject of the bill and my comments on airport security and on transport to and from Palm Island, in particular. I live about an hour south of Townsville. If a school or a group of people in my region want to get a football team together to go to Townsville to play in the Townsville competition, they hire a bus for $300 or $400 and go up, play the game and come home. The people of Palm Island would also like to participate in those sorts of events. As well as that, they would like to send groups of school children from either the state school or the Catholic school there over to the mainland to do various things that children do when they travel on school excursions. But, for the people of Palm Island, the cost of getting to and from the island is prohibitive. It prohibits the island people having as many student visits and student excursions as the people on the mainland would have, and it certainly prohibits any group of young people getting involved in a sporting activity and playing on the mainland, where the competition would be. This form of discrimination, this form of substandard facilities and lack of social justice for these people, is quite appalling. This occurs because the cost per person of travel to and from Palm Island—a 20-minute exercise—is $160, so to send a team of 10 people would cost $1,600, which makes it prohibitive.

I am aware that, in many parts of Queensland in the aviation industry, the Queensland government does subsidise travel to remote areas. That has been an initiative of the Queensland government, I think—dare I say it—since Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s time and it has been continued by successive governments. But it seems to me unfortunate and unusual that, for a place like Palm Island, for which the state government has sole responsibility, something has not been done to date to, in some way, subsidise the air travel between Townsville and Palm Island.

I was over on Palm Island just last week visiting both schools. Talking to the Catholic school they said they would dearly love to bring in relief teachers for a couple of days or sometimes for a week or so at times as is needed, but the cost of getting teachers over to Palm Island and back just makes that an unviable option. It means that the schooling provided for the young people on Palm Island is curtailed. It sort of builds on that unfortunate cycle of dysfunctionalism and social injustice that many of the Indigenous people on Palm Island feel. It is not something that would be tolerated on the island but it almost seems that, as far as the state government is concerned in Queensland, it is a bit out of sight, out of mind.

You would be aware, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, that there was a considerable amount of trouble on Palm Island a little while ago with the death of Mr Doomadgee. The state government, as a result of that, came up with all of the promises and commitments to spend money to do things but, as I say, very little of that has happened. But if you want to address the long-term problems and difficulties on Palm Island, you do really have to look at some of these underlying disadvantages.

One of the disadvantages that became very apparent to me—as it is to the people who live there, because many of them in all different sorts of fields mentioned it—is the cost of getting to and from the island. I am not blaming the airline of course. The airline has a business to run and it costs so much to buy the plane, pay pilots and staff, get systems in order and pay for the fuel. I do not think the airline makes any enormous profits out of that run. But what I am surprised at is that there is no subsidy from the Queensland government for travel to that community. It is an underlying facility, concession and support that should be available to that community. I have mentioned sporting teams, I have mentioned schooling but across the board it just makes things so expensive and difficult.

It is difficult to get health workers to the island. I met the local doctor and the ambulance man and they do a fabulous job and are totally committed to their work on the island. But occasionally they would like to get off the island to experience a bit of the social and recreational life on the mainland. But that sort of airfare makes it very expensive to do that and this is a disincentive to health workers to volunteer for a place like Palm Island and so, again, it reinforces that cycle of disadvantage that the people on that island suffer. If you were able to subsidise that airfare—as I think the Queensland government should do because they do in other parts of the state—then I think you would find a huge difference in the community and outlook not only of those on the island themselves but of the people who could get to the island to help out.

During my visit, I was shown around by the Deputy Chairman, Councillor Zac Sam, and his assessments of the problems there in relation to the airfare, the cost of getting to and from the island, were very perceptive. Zac and his council do a great job—they are in touch with the community and they know the problems that are there, but they cannot seem to get the assistance from the Queensland government. Again and again they have sought help; the help is talked about when Mr Beattie is somewhere around the area or when it is coming up to a state election. Of course, there are always a lot of promises and commitments then, but the reality is that the island does suffer disadvantages and continues to suffer disadvantages because of the inaction of the Queensland government.

I certainly would urge, and I will be following up with the government of Queensland after this Saturday, some consideration of whether or not the airfares to Palm Island should be subsidised. I certainly think they should be. The cost would be minimal. The money that is sometimes spent on correcting or attempting to ameliorate problems after they have occurred on Palm Island could well be mitigated if action were taken to prevent some of those problems happening. A more affordable air service to the island would help in so many ways, some of which I have mentioned during the course of my contribution to the second reading debate on this bill.

As I say, there is a service to Palm Island. It is a service that I understand is being considered and investigated for an upgrade of aviation security in the times ahead of us. Those security arrangements are the sorts of things that will be made easier by the passage of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald for his remarks on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2006, particularly for drawing to the attention of the Senate issues relating to Palm Island and, I regret to say, the broken promises of Premier Beattie. I thank you for the interest that you are taking in this issue, Senator Macdonald.

Senator Scullion commented on security issues which were raised in a very unfortunate manner by Senator Kerry O’Brien. Senator Scullion was able to put on record the very important initiatives that this government has taken. Senator O’Brien never fails to disappoint, unfortunately. He is an intelligent senator; he is one who I think does work. But often his speeches are marked by low-grade politics. If Senator O’Brien is unhappy with the position of the Australian government on security issues, the obvious question is: what is the Labor Party position?

I listened in vain, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin—I am not sure that you will fully agree with my remarks—for a constructive comment by Senator O’Brien on these matters. These are serious issues and they deserve to be treated in a very serious fashion. If senators are unhappy with the government position, it is perfectly appropriate for them to stand up and attack that position; but one would then listen carefully to see what the alternative Labor Party position is. I regret to say that often we wait in vain for that position. The truth is that the Labor Party has not developed a position on this.

We are going back to old-style Labor. You criticise, criticise and criticise but you have nothing to put up instead. All I can say is that that is not the way to win elections. That is my view: it is not the way to win elections. The Labor Party have now lost four on the trot. One would have thought that they would have learned that they have to put up some real alternatives. It is not good enough to come into this chamber, take a few cheap shots at the government and then scurry off. It is just not good enough. I draw that to the attention of the Senate.

Normally I like to thank senators for their comments. My briefing notes always say, ‘I would like to thank senators for their comments.’ But I really cannot thank Senator O’Brien for his comments, I regret to say.

It is well known that the aviation industry forms a critical part of the Australian economy. Let me just state for the record that the government has been and will continue to be uncompromising in its commitment to high levels of aviation security—both to protect the travelling public and to safeguard the broader national interest served by a secure, functioning aviation industry.

Australia’s aviation industry is as complex as it is important. This is the first bill to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act; it is an important step in the never-ending task of finetuning the legal requirements for aviation security, with the complex and ever-changing operations of aviation businesses. All the amendments in this bill were developed in consultation with Australia’s aviation industry. This is a government which consults; it is a government which listens. The government gets out and talks to people. We take into account people’s views. We saw that in relation to Senator Macdonald’s comments this evening. We are out there; we are talking to people.

This bill will enhance Australia’s aviation security regime by amending the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 in three ways. Firstly, it will enable airport operators to manage security risks within airports when hosting unusual events. Secondly, it will deliver more robust regulation of air cargo. Thirdly, it will allow aviation industry participants to make simple alterations to their transport security programs.

The government believes that the amendments will increase Australia’s high level of aviation security—this point was very well made by Senator Nigel Scullion in his remarks—will further enhance national and international confidence in Australia’s regime for handling air cargo; and, importantly, will provide a flexible and targeted mechanism for airport operators to manage special events and temporary, non-routine activities that can be contained within a specified area of an airport.

In the area of air cargo, the proposed amendments will maintain the broad scope of the cargo security scheme while introducing a legal framework for regulations to provide a more flexible and appropriately modulated approach to security at each step through the transport chain. Australia’s airports are used for much more than just regular passenger services. Major international airports have to be able to host receptions for the arrival or departure of VIPs. Our regional airports are core community infrastructure. Their facilities are used for a wide range of low-risk community based activities, including such things as air shows, drag racing and vintage car shows. The special event amendments will enable airport operators to effectively manage the security of the events and activities that are appropriately held at airports but that are outside the airport’s core business. My advice is that this will allow airports to tailor special event zones to suit the type of event they are hosting and the assessed risk that is associated with each particular event.

The government has paid careful attention to the many issues that the Australian aviation industry has raised in our two regular industry consultative forums, the Aviation Security Advisory Forum and the Regional Industry Consultative Meeting. This bill is a response to some of those concerns.

The Australian government—let me underline this—is committed to working with the aviation industry in the never-ending task of protecting Australia’s travelling public and air commerce. The bill is an important one, and it is important that it now has speedy passage through the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.