Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak this evening on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. I rise to support the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. Aviation security must always come before partisan politics. This has always been Labor's commitment in both government and in opposition. This legislation provides some simple but necessary changes that will ensure it is up to date with a modern system of transport security, which I am sure you are very familiar with, Acting Deputy President Gallacher. Importantly it seeks to ensure the right balance between privacy and security, upholding Australia's commitment to an equal and non-discriminatory screening program.

All Australians expect the Commonwealth to ensure that ongoing vigilance, particularly in the aviation and airport sector, is awarded the utmost importance. Transport safety in today's world is dynamic. Governments must respond to threats, as they emerge, with appropriate legislative changes. This legislation will play an essential role in ensuring that this continues to occur. It will update the process airports use for screening of people, vehicles and goods which are already in a security zone at the airport, bringing it into line with international standards. While legislation currently permits screening of people, vehicles and goods when entering a security zone, there is no additional provision for the random screening of these when already inside a security zone. The main aim of the legislation is to provide this authority, while also reinforcing that any screening must be consistent with the random and unpredictable approach.

In its simplest form this legislation provides another layer of security at airports. The use of this authority will be a matter between the airport and the Office of Transport Security, the government body that approves transport security plans for each airport. The government has indicated that these in-zone screening arrangements will initially apply at the following nine airports: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Darwin Gold Coast and Cairns. Importantly, this legislation sits alongside enhanced security awareness training for employees and contractors who work in security zones. It also authorises greater delegation of powers under aviation and maritime transport security legislation to facilitate quicker responses. While the government has highlighted removal of regulatory constraints as a benefit, Labor believes transport security is too important to simply be an exercise in extending light-handed regulation. Regulatory settings should always be reviewed.

But Labor's main reason for supporting this legislation is first and foremost because it updates security measures so they are consistent with world standards. The legislation also includes an additional sensible option to enhance the central objective of removing threats to aviation security. Australia has always taken aviation security seriously. We are a signatory to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, known as the Chicago Convention. Recently the International Civil Aviation Organization, established under the Chicago Convention, has increased standards for screening of persons, goods and vehicles in security controlled zones at airports. Australian legislation should be updated to reflect this higher standard, which is what this amendment bill will achieve. We know from recent events, including the bombing of the Metrojet flight in Egypt in October 2015 and the attempted bombing of the Daallo Airlines flight in Somalia in February last year, that even potential threats require action.

Of course, these changes must ensure people's rights to equal treatment and privacy continue to be protected. The explanatory memorandum to this legislation outlines its commitment to both of these in the formal statement of compatibility with human rights. On equality and non-discrimination it says:

All people have the right to be treated equally. In keeping with Australia's egalitarian screening regime applied to aviation passengers, selection of airport and airline workers, visitors and contractors for screening inside the security restricted areas (SRAs) of airports will be conducted on a purely random basis. Individuals will not be selected according to their race, religion, gender, or any other personal characteristic.

In respect of privacy it says:

In cases where a frisk search is necessary the individual may request that procedure to occur in a private room or within a screened area. A frisk search will always be undertaken by someone of the same gender as the person being searched.

We expect airports and the government to ensure that appropriate arrangements exist for this to occur on all occasions. Importantly, this statement enshrines people's rights while also underpinning a robust and effective screening program. The explanatory memorandum explicitly states that racial and other profiling will not apply to searches and that frisk searches will be conducted by a person of the same gender.

This builds on Labor's strong track record for aviation and airport security. When in government we oversaw the strengthening of the security regime applying to air cargo, committing $54.2 million to install X-ray screening technology at freight depots. We also invested an additional $200 million in the nation's aviation security. Much of this funding facilitated the introduction of new and improved security technologies at airports, including the latest body scanners, next generation multiview X-ray machines and bottle scanners capable of detecting liquid based explosives. It also provided for increased policing at airports, enhanced security procedures and strengthened international cooperation. We improved security at regional airports, introducing legislation that requires domestic checked baggage screening at all regional airports operating RPT services.

With more than 150 million passengers flying through Australian skies each year, Labor will always support sensible measures that protect Australian citizens and continue the nation's reputation for aviation safety. Australia has an enviable aviation safety record. It is a credit to our existing system of regulation and to all participants in the system, including airports and airlines. This legislation is consistent with maintaining that record.

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

I rise today to provide some comments on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and will begin by noting that the Greens are supportive of the measures contained in this bill and feel that they are an accurate and appropriate way to balance the issues between security and protecting people's rights. In amending the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the bill is providing for 'additional security measures to allow people, vehicles or goods to undergo aviation security screening within an airside area or zone at a security controlled airport', to quote the bill's explanatory memorandum.

We see the measures proposed in the bill as reasonable steps that complement existing airport security protocols by allowing for screening to occur within the airside zone at a security controlled airport in addition to the screening point where someone enters the zone. We all know as passengers the screening we have to go through to get into the security controlled zone. This essentially is adding to that. In particular for people working within that zone—for anybody within that zone—this gives the opportunity for those extra screening measures to take place. We feel that these measures in this bill are a good balance between providing safety and security versus privacy and the right of movement for people at our airports. The Greens recognise that we do have sensible measures in place at our airports to address the possibility of violence or terrorist attack, and we note that this bill assists Australia to meet its obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation. We recognise that there are particular security considerations that we need to take into account at airports to ensure the safety of travellers and workers who are moving through airports and flying between them. When you are up there in the plane and there are security issues, there is nowhere else to go. It is a particularly point place to be.

So, we need to make wise judgements. We need to make sure that we get that balance right. We need to make sure that when people are at airports and are flying they are safe while but at the same time to do that without unduly impacting upon people's rights and without unduly creating a climate of fear. People need to have the certainty and the confidence that they are going to be safe but not a sense of overt control that makes them feel that it is a very unsafe and fearful place to be. In creating a safe and harmonious society, it is really antithetical if we have people living in a climate of constant fear.

However, we think the government's bill represents a useful step to ensure that safety sits alongside the existing screening arrangements in Australian airports. A key element of this bill is that we want to make sure that the additional screening that takes place is random, that it is not racially profiling people or picking out a particular group of people under the presumption or the hunch that they are going to be more likely to be security risks. I think it is particularly worth noting that the bill does specify that the random screening events are just that—random—because it would be a serious breach of civil rights if people were in some way profiled before being identified for screening.

I note the amendment from Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, who in fact want to see racial profiling; they want to see racism in place in our airports. They want to say that no, we think this group of people are more likely to be security risks, purely on the basis of their race or other characteristics. We reject that completely, and we are pleased to see that this bill does not feature that. And I will be pleased to have that debate when we are addressing those amendments, to discuss how important it is that we do not resort to racial profiling in these screening measures, that everyone is treated equally, that the presumption of innocence is there for everyone, regardless of their background, their race, their gender or any other characteristics.

The other really important thing we need to ensure with this legislation is that the screening of workers or travellers is not unnecessarily invasive or impinging on people's privacy. Security is important, but not at the expense of civil liberties and human rights. So I am pleased to note that, as noted in the explanatory memorandum, the government has carefully considered how the introduction of in-zone screening will impact the privacy of people working in restricted airport areas or zones and has ensured that privacy safeguards are in place.

In conclusion, with those provisos in place—that we are not going to see racial profiling taking place, that people's rights, people's privacy, are being taken account of, that discrimination is not occurring, that nondiscrimination provisions currently exist in screening arrangements; it is really worth underlining how important it is that they are going to be taken forward into any future screening arrangements, because it would be a very bad step forward if that were to occur—the Greens are pleased to support this bill as a useful set of measures to maintain airport security in Australia.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to make my comments on the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, which we know has passed through the other house. We also know that Labor supports this bill; there is no argument. There is nothing more important in terms of transport than the security of our ports and our wharfs. And I can say that with a bit of background, because it was the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, back when I first walked into this place, that was doing the inquiry into the MSIC—the Maritime Security Identification Card. But the previous card, the ASIC, as you would well know, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, with your experience, like mine, around the airport—actually, you have far more experience around the airport, being a worn-out old baggage handler, which I say with the greatest of respect, because that is a tough gig, especially when you are doing it in Darwin or Alice Springs, like you did for many, many years, and kept those flights going. You were a magnificent servant to our nation, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you not believe me? He was a baggage handler. While you lot all sat there sipping champagne in the chairman's lounge, he was loading the plane. That is what he was doing.

An honourable senator interjecting —

He was shearing sheep back then, but he is not now, is he? It is like me—I am not moving furniture anymore. But I digress.

Government senators interjecting—

You see, Mr Acting Deputy President, how dare I congratulate an old blue-collar worker with dirt under the fingernails who has done the hard stuff? They still pounce on me. With the born-to-rule mentality on that side of the chamber, it is hard to be serious and make a wonderful contribution to transport security.

So, to go back, when I first walked into this building, that was one of the first inquiries I walked into. The other one was the canker inquiry, and I will talk about that later, on another date. So I do know the importance, and, as Senator Rice said very clearly before me, we cannot overscreen.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are sucking up to Senator Rice.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sucking up to Senator Rice. Senator Williams, that is a bit harsh. Crikey, we are all on the same side on this one. But I too worry about the security of our airports. I have done inquiries over the years where we have travelled the nation and we have talked up a good fight about security. I remember the 'don't be alarmed, be alert' and all that sort of stuff. I have sat with other members from the other side of the chamber at Karratha Airport and we had wonderful screening going on in the terminal. That was fine, but there was a three-foot wire fence you could jump over and you could do whatever you liked on the other side. We have come a long, long way.

This bill, very clearly, takes that next step, where we can screen machinery, vehicles, workers and contractors once they are in the secure zone, which has never happened before. We should continue to keep going further. With your experience, Mr Acting Deputy President, you would know that we cannot overscreen freight. A lot of the time, in a lot of our ports, we have no idea what is coming through in these containers or whatever they may be. So this is a first step and a good step, and we should absolutely be able to instil in the travelling public in Australia that this government and governments to follow and previous governments put an absolute best foot forward to make sure, with the madness that is going on around the world, that Australian travellers can rest assured that there are no shortcuts in security—in aviation and on the waterfront. There is no argument at all. It is with great pleasure that I can make my contribution and talk this up and say to the government: 'I would like you to keep going. I would like you to put the big boy pants on and take one step further and instil in our national security a little bit more foresight in having a look at who is coming into our nation.' While I do not want to demean the work of the government, with the opposition and the minor parties supporting this, you still need to continue.

It is all very well to talk up the tough fight, but—this digresses a little bit, but it is very important I share this with you—we have flag-of-convenience vessels, and in 2012 a captain came in on one of the largest coal carriers in this nation, and, strangely, two seamen lost their lives on his ship. I want to mention the great work that the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee is doing. And I will tell you why it does: because it has members like Senator Williams, Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Back, who support me and you, Mr Acting Deputy President, when you were on the RRAT committee, and other members. We do take this seriously. I am proud to say that this is the most bipartisan Senate committee in this building, because it just puts the best interests of Australia and Australians first.

A Filipino captain who had lost two of his seafarers to terrible deaths came into our port. Then he confessed to being a gun-runner. I am not making this up. This sounds like a bad American B-grade movie. Unfortunately, it is true. But the kicker in this is that he sailed off. He went off. The Japanese owned the vessel and the Japanese were doing the investigation. I cannot believe I have to say this. Then there was a coronial inquest. It is still going. There was a coronial inquest in Sydney. The lawyers were up there, in the absence of Captain Salas. He was nowhere to be found. No-one knew where he was—ASIO, the AFP—no-one had a clue. So they were having the coronial inquiry in Sydney, and Owen Jacques, a reporter from north of Brisbane who had been following the case since 2012, flew down from the Sunshine Coast and was sitting in the spectator area listening to the prosecutor running the case about Captain Salas. At the smoko break, Owen Jacques walked up to the main lawyer said, 'Guess what, I know where Captain Salas is.' ASIO did not know. AFP did not know. Border control and Immigration did not know. He knew. He said, 'They are coming into the Port of Gladstone' on whatever ship it was. There was a flurry of activity.

Debate interrupted.