Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to further strengthen and clarify a range of aviation safety and security provisions. In particular, the bill amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 in two primary ways: firstly, so that a person who is outside an aircraft can commit the offence of interfering with aircrew or endangering an aircraft or passengers. I note that this provision addresses recent concerns in the community—most recently reported today, in fact—about the pointing of lasers at aircraft approaching or taking off from major airports. Secondly, the bill adds a new part to create the statutory framework to provide for drug and alcohol testing and management.

There are also four major changes to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004: firstly, to more closely align aviation security legislation with maritime security legislation and make the transport security process more flexible; secondly, to provide for the making of regulations to prohibit activities outside airports that could adversely affect airport or aircraft operations in line with the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s requirements; thirdly, to provide broader and more effective coverage of potential acts of unlawful interference with aviation, including further powers for Australian Customs officers at airports, in line with the recommendations of the 2005 Wheeler report, An independent review of airport security and policing for the government of Australia; and, finally, to provide for the making of regulations that would specifically describe those senior dignitaries and their families who are exempt from aviation security screening.

I am pleased to have been involved in the review of the bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. While the committee recommends that the bill be passed, the committee raised a number of concerns, which I share. I foreshadow that I will move the second reading amendment tabled here today, to address those concerns. I understand that a second reading amendment has been circulated. I am concerned about the creation of an exemption mechanism for senior dignitaries, rather than use of the case-by-case mechanism already existing for security screening. Several industry participants also expressed concern about these provisions, including Virgin Blue Airlines, the Australian Airports Association and Adelaide Airport, who were opposed to any exemption.

Virgin Blue argued that ‘the approach adopted by the government introduces security vulnerabilities and risks to the security framework’ and therefore to the travelling public. Clearly, if a person who is exempt from screening and clearance under legislation can enter a sterile area or board an aircraft whilst in possession of a weapon or prohibited item, either intentionally or inadvertently, then this poses a risk to security.

I think it is fair to say that the committee reluctantly accepted the advice of Department of Transport and Regional Services officials—who themselves were acting on the advice of DFAT and the Attorney-General’s Department—that the amendments are necessary to meet Australia’s international legal obligations in relation to the processing of visiting dignitaries. They pointed out that the changes will not involve a large number of people, will meet Australia’s international legal obligations and will actually only create a power to grant an exemption.

As stated in the second reading amendment, which is being tabled at the moment, I call, on behalf of the opposition, on the government to consult further with the aviation industry and unions and to take into account their advice before exercising the power to exempt any senior dignitaries from security screening. Such exemptions should only be granted to meet the international legal obligations referred to by Department of Transport and Regional Services officials in their evidence to the Senate committee.

My second concern relates to the introduction of drug and alcohol management and testing programs. These measures are required to deliver better safety outcomes to Australian civil aviation and to maintain Australia’s international standing as a leader in aviation safety. According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau pilot safety survey on the use of drugs and alcohol, more than 20 per cent of pilots who responded indicated that they felt that, at some point in the previous year, safety had been compromised in some way by alcohol, drugs or prescribed medication. The Hamilton Island air crash in 2002, in which six people lost their lives, is believed to be at least partly attributable to alcohol and drugs. So, whilst I am broadly supportive of the introduction of drug and alcohol management and testing, I am concerned about the exclusion of certain stakeholders from the consultation process and about the development of the detail.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has so far shown some willingness to consult further on the implementation details but has not been willing to include the Australian and International Pilots Association as a formal member of the drug and alcohol project team, despite the constructive contributions that that organisation has made to the process. The Australian and International Pilots Association, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, who cover airport security, have all raised issues about the implementation of the drug and alcohol management and testing regime but are broadly supportive of the approach. In particular, the AIPA and the LHMU stressed the need for an approach based on harm minimisation, education and rehabilitation, rather than on punitive measures. In my second reading amendment, I call on the government to consult further with the aviation industry and unions and to take into account their advice regarding the practical implementation of the proposed drug and alcohol management and testing regime.

The third issue relates to the proposals concerning Customs officers in the implementation of recommendation VI of the Wheeler report of 2005, which recommends:

• all police, AFPPS and Customs officers deployed to an airport be given clear and unambiguous powers, including to stop, search, detain and arrest where necessary within the airport and adjacent roads and parking areas

Given that Customs officers will now be undertaking police-like activities, I think it is important that the powers of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity also be expanded so that it can oversee these activities. Accordingly, the second reading amendment calls on the government to do just that.

Let me also say that the government could have exercised more haste in acting on the recommendations of the Wheeler report, and I note that there is also more to be done. Broadly speaking, I support the measures proposed in the bill, and we will be voting in support of the legislation. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

                 “but the Senate condemns the Government for creating an exemption mechanism for senior dignitaries rather than using the case-by-case mechanism for security screening and calls on the Government to:

             (a)    consult further with the aviation industry and unions and take into account their advice before exercising the power to exempt any senior dignitaries from security screening;

             (b)    consult further with the aviation industry and unions and take into account their advice regarding the practical implementation of the proposed drug and alcohol management and testing regime;

             (c)    consult fully with stakeholders in the drafting of all relevant regulations subsequent to the passage of the bill; and

             (d)    expand the powers of Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, so that it can oversee the police-like activities undertaken by Customs”.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they should be.

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

During the committee’s hearing, DOTARS explained that the new section would operate within the context of existing laws which define unlawful interference with aviation. This does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action that does not result in or contribute to a security event. These amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 are intended to enhance the legal framework used to regulate and maintain security and safety within the Australian aviation industry.

The bill also contains two sets of amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1988. Section 24 is amended to extend the offence of interfering with aircrew or endangering an aircraft or passengers to apply to a person who is outside an aircraft. As previously mentioned, there is concern in the aviation industry about the increasing incidence of lasers being used to interfere with an aircraft, particularly on approach to and on take-off from airports. The amendment to the Civil Aviation Act will mean that a person who threatens the safety of an aircraft, either by laser or by other means, will be committing an offence.

The second amendment creates a statutory framework that will permit the making of regulations for, and in relation to, the development, implementation and enforcement of drug and alcohol management plans and of drug and alcohol testing for persons who perform or are available to perform safety-sensitive aviation activities. The amendment also states that the results of drug and alcohol tests are not admissible in legal proceedings other than under the Civil Aviation Act and regulations or in other proceedings that could be prescribed in the regulations for this purpose. Under the new legislation, safety-sensitive personnel will include: flight crew; cabin crew; flight instructors; aircraft dispatchers; aircraft maintenance and repair personnel; aviation security personnel, including screeners; air traffic controllers; baggage handlers; ground refuellers; other personnel with airside access; and contractors. I believe that the aviation industry moving this way is a very strong message to contractors in other industries that they should get their acts together as well.

The new regime will consist of two components: industry and CASA. Industry participants may elect to randomly test their employees; however, it is not intended that such random testing be mandated by CASA. Rather, CASA will engage a contractor to undertake random testing on its behalf. I found it disappointing that some representatives of the aviation industry who were present at the committee hearing doubted that drug and alcohol problems were present in their industry. It is most unfortunate but it is now a reality that drugs have found their way into every section of society. No industry, group or sector is immune. After much debate and discussion, the representatives were ultimately supportive of the introduction of mandatory drug and alcohol testing throughout the Australian aviation sector, recognising that the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean there is not a problem.

After agreeing to the amendments, industry representatives made a number of comments about the practical implications of the new arrangements and the regulations which would govern the proposed regime. The Australian Federation of Air Pilots was particularly concerned with the location and timing of random tests. Testing in the aircraft, in the vicinity of the aircraft, in the gate lounge or on the tarmac would, of course, be unacceptable.

Through these amendments, the government is committed to ensuring that workers will benefit from a safer workplace knowing that their colleagues are not impaired by alcohol or drugs, and the public will benefit from a safer aviation industry. In the committee’s report to the Senate, the committee members stated that we anticipate that the drafting of regulations will be based on full consultation with all stakeholders. The successful implementation of the bill will depend largely on the extent to which concerns such as those raised by stakeholders during the inquiry are addressed. In conclusion, I would like to support the passage of this legislation, as aviation security is strengthened by these amendments without imposing significant additional costs and burdens upon the aviation industry.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their comments and contributions, particularly the three senators who spoke: Senator O’Brien, Senator Adams and Senator McEwen, and I thank the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for its thoughtful attention to the input on the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, particularly in relation to the screening and clearing of dignitaries, and its consideration of a proposed new section for interference with the operations of a security controlled airport by a person outside the boundary of the airport—and we have heard about the irresponsible use of lasers. Aviation security is a high priority for this government and is under constant review to ensure that the regulatory framework is responsive to changing threats to the Australian aviation industry.

This bill makes the amendments that are necessary to aviation legislation to better manage these threats. The amendments in this bill are the result of both industry suggestion and government administrative experience. There are four significant amendments in the bill. The Aviation and Transport Security Act is amended so that regulations can be made to prohibit activities or conduct taking place outside airport boundaries that disrupt or interfere with the operations of a security controlled airport such as, as I have mentioned, shining a laser through the airport fence at an aircraft. The amendment will also provide a clearer basis for prohibiting conduct within an airport that can lead to serious disruption such as leaving baggage unattended in a public area of the airport. The new regulation-making power does not extend to disruptive activity that forms part of the normal or usual operations of the airport or airline as a place of business, such as lawful industrial action by airport or airline employees.

The amendment to aviation security screening exemptions for some dignitaries reflects a balance between Australia’s international legal obligations and security outcomes. The amendment will also provide flexibility to exempt dignitaries, most, if not all, of whom would be expected to enjoy privileges and immunities under international treaty obligations. The actual list of persons who might be exempt will be determined by government following consultation and advice from relevant agencies. It is not intended that people with celebrity status would be exempt from aviation screening.

Importantly, an airline still has the ultimate right to determine which passengers it will carry and under what conditions. Also, the Aviation Transport Security Act now contains further powers for Australian Customs officers at airports and implements one of the recommendations from the aviation security report by Sir John Wheeler. The first amendment to the Civil Aviation Act covers dangerous acts committed by a person on the ground or on board an aircraft, having particular regard to the direction of laser beams at aircraft. The second amendment to the Civil Aviation Act provides new powers to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to enable it to implement a new drug and alcohol regime for the civil aviation sector. This amendment will provide safety benefits for both aviation workers and the broader community by appropriately addressing the risks of impaired aviation personnel. Lastly, there are also amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act that include enhancements to the transport security program regime. These amendments are consistent with the requirements contained in the maritime regime. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.