Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill will clearly contribute to the ongoing security measures we have as part of our transport system. I think, clearly, there are a number of measures in this bill which will enhance those operations and ensure that we have the security processes in place that we need in our aviation sector.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8063 standing in my name.

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 11), after item 2, insert:

2A At the end of section 41

Add:

(6) Screening of individuals is to be conducted in accordance with the advice of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in general prioritising individuals profiled as members of high threat groups.

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), after item 7, insert:

Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005

7A Subregulation 3.16D(4)

Omit 'random'.

As set out in the circulated amendments, on behalf of Pauline Hanson's One Nation, our proposed changes to the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 will refocus security screening from its current deference to political correctness to the single goal of minimising risk to air travellers by responding to identified threats. Specifically, our amendments to the bill before the Senate seek, firstly, to delete the word 'random' from regulation 3.16D(4) of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005; and, secondly, to add a subsection (6) to section 41 in part 4 of division 2 of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to state:

Screening of individuals is to be conducted in accordance with the advice of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, in general prioritising individuals profiled as members of high threat groups.

Currently, airport screening is to be conducted not in accordance with the threat advice of the Australian Federal Police and ASIO but on a non-discriminatory, random basis. This ridiculous situation subordinates screening of the highest risk individuals to the political correct goal of being nondiscriminatory. In other words, this places politically correct ahead of the safety and security of Australian families. This left-wing control madness must end. These proposed amendments will remove the requirement in the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 for security screening to be conducted randomly and then amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to require that screening of individuals be conducted whilst prioritising individuals profiled as members of high-threat groups in accordance with the advice of the AFP and ASIO.

One Nation implores other senators to put the safety of our loved ones first and support our efforts to align our security procedures with those of the Israelis and the Americans, for whom airport security is a non-negotiable priority. In that spirit I commend One Nation's amendments to the chamber.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate to the chamber that the government will not be supporting the proposed One Nation amendments. As the minister in the other place said and as I stated here this morning, aviation workers who are subject to security screening under the new arrangements will be afforded the same protections as passengers to ensure that they are not subject to racial or religious discrimination and that their privacy is protected. The bill will provide airports with the flexibility to determine the best way to implement security-screening controls for the airside areas and submit their transport security plan to the Office of Transport Security for approval. The bill will also ensure that Australia is meeting its requirements under the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

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

I wish to advise Senator Roberts that the opposition will not be supporting these amendments. We believe they would allow racial profiling, pure and simple, an approach that law enforcement and national security organisations, both here and overseas, including the United States, are opposed to. When the police and national security agencies start targeting people based on their race it effectively puts a whole community under suspicion. What is more, it virtually guarantees that the innocent will regularly find themselves stopped for little reason beyond the colour of their skin. Racial profiling can also poison relations between authorities and the community. When minority groups feel they are under constant suspicion they are less likely to pass on information that could be vital to solving crimes and, more importantly, preventing terrorist attacks.

Lastly, as the bill's explanatory memorandum quite rightly states:

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 … 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.

That is the kind of Australia that the Labor Party wishes to continue to stand up for.

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

The Greens are also opposed to Senator Roberts's amendments. We completely reject the hurtful, hateful racism and Islamophobia contained within the proposed amendments. We know that the so-called Christian Aussie that Senator Roberts referred to as being less likely to be a terrorist is in fact just as likely to be a terrorist as any other race of people in Australia. As the Prime Minister has reinforced today, we live in the most successful multicultural nation in the world. The reason we are the most successful multicultural nation is that we respect and celebrate difference and we know that people, regardless of their background and race, are free to be law-abiding Australian citizens.

If Senator Roberts's amendments were successful, everyone of Muslim background would be much more likely to be screened, regardless of there being no justification for that. We know that it would mean that people would be feeling that division. We know what breeds hatred in our community, and it is the racist, hateful and hurtful positions of One Nation. That is what is breeding hatred. It is, in fact, what is breeding unlawful activity in our community. We know that treating everyone equally, regardless of their background, and encouraging and supporting their sense of being valued by all Australians is what will keep us safe.

The Greens want to send the message to people from all backgrounds in Australia that we consider Australians all equal here. We want to keep everybody safe and we know the way to do that is to treat everybody equally. In measures like this, where we are concerned about the safety of Australians, every Australian has the right to be treated the same and treated as equally as other Australians.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to know from the minister whether or not ASIO and the Australian Federal Police are considered to be incompetent or competent? If they are incompetent, why should we have them? I am reflecting a significant proportion of our community's concerns. I will speak up, no matter how I am denigrated, because I believe that I am a servant to the people of Queensland Australia and people have significant concerns. I want to know whether or not ASIO and the AFP are considered to be competent or incompetent.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course the government considers ASIO and the AFP to be competent. We have complete confidence in those agencies.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, then why should we not follow their advice on particular groups and assess threats based on their competence?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have outlined very clearly the government's position on this, and it remains the same.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.