Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party supports a safe and secure transport sector in our nation. It needs to be managed by the right legislation and regulation to stay one step ahead of criminals and terrorists. We of course know the threats facing our transport sector are constantly evolving. It's critical that we revise and refine our laws to keep Australia's transport sector one of the safest in the world. The safety and security of all Australians is paramount. We in the Labor Party will always take the advice of our national security agencies. Labor has a consistent track record of working cooperatively and in a bipartisan manner on all matters of national security. Of course the bill before the chamber today—the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019—is no exception.

The bill today amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, the aviation act, and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, the maritime act, to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports. The bill before us aims to improve transport security in two important ways.

Firstly, the bill before us clarifies the ability of aviation security inspectors to test aviation industry participants' security systems, including by specifically allowing inspectors to conduct system tests with the test pieces at locations beyond screening points in an airport terminal. They will be able to do this without the risk of committing an offence under other laws. For example, following the passage of the bill, aviation security inspectors will be able to expand their testing regimes to include air cargo examination and, importantly, catering facilities.

The bill before us also establishes the framework needed to introduce a national standard of competency for aviation and maritime screening personnel. The thousands of security screeners who work hard at our airports and seaports perform a vital role. I personally am grateful—as, I'm sure, all senators and staff in this place are personally grateful—for the work they do to keep us safe in our skies. These people, our security screeners, prevent weapons, firearms and explosives from making it onto aircraft and cruise ships, ensuring we can all travel safely and securely. To me it's notable that, because they're there to make sure people aren't carrying such items, they do this largely without discovering them. It highlights the significance and importance of the screening role they play, which means that in large part people don't even attempt to get such items on board. Indeed, we're all happy to comply and participate in such screening.

The legislation ensures that the education, training and testing requirements for screeners will remain flexible, effective and relevant in an increasingly complex security environment. It gives us the framework necessary so that screeners are well-equipped to respond to threats both now and into the future. The bill introduces measures allowing the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs to prescribe the requirements associated with screeners' training, qualification and accreditation. This is with the aim of enabling screener requirements to be adapted efficiently and in response to rapid changes in the security environment, meaning that we will have a workforce that is more flexible and agile in responding to these issues.

I'd like to draw particular attention to the important work of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to this legislation. The original bill had a number of gaping holes which were identified by the committee. I'm sad to say that they do speak to the lack of due diligence that has become commonplace under this Liberal-National government. It is particularly alarming to see these issues arise within a security context. Firstly, the unamended legislation would have permitted an aviation security inspector to test an aviation industry participant's security system 'including by using an item, weapon or vehicle'. Of course, this means real weapons and, therefore, real explosives in testing the detection of such items. While the legislation notes that tests must be done in accordance with any requirements prescribed in regulations, we don't believe that delegated legislation should be used unless a sound justification is provided. As no such justification has been provided, despite the scrutiny of bills committee calling on the government to explain this lack of clarity in December, Labor will therefore move an amendment that seeks to prevent this legislation coming into force until the testing requirements are prescribed via regulation.

Secondly, the explanatory memorandum clearly states that any test pieces, such as 'imitation firearms and simulated improvised explosive devices', are designed to be inert and not to cause harm. However, as the scrutiny of bills committee noted again, this requirement does not exist on the face of the primary legislation, and Labor believes that this must be fixed. What kind of government, I ask the chamber—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—omits a requirement like this from the legislation? This is about keeping people safe in their workplaces and safe in our skies, plain and simple. In what context should people who are testing the robustness of screening be asked to use live firearms or, for example, real explosives?

We appreciate that the government has heard Labor members' urgent calls for the legislation to be amended and for an assurance that live firearms and improvised explosive devices won't be used. We are pleased to say we will, of course, support this amendment to correct this glaring oversight.

Lastly, the legislation allows the secretary to determine training and qualification requirements for screening officers by legislative instrument. However, the secretary is also empowered to exempt the class of screening officers from one or more of the requirements if exceptional circumstances exist. We acknowledge that there might be valid situations where exemptions might need to be applied. Labor believes that the application of these exemptions must be reported transparently. We thank the government in advance for their commitment to accurately and transparently answering questions in relation to these exemptions during Senate estimates. And I'd like to draw Senator Cash's attention to these remarks, which were to say to the government: we have very forthrightly argued that, for any exemptions to the training qualification requirements for screening officers—anyone who is exempted—the government should report those transparently. We're looking to the government to provide that information during Senate estimates in relation to the use of any such exemptions.

The Australian people put great trust in the parliament to ensure that we enact the right legislation to protect Australia's national security. We do this while also balancing any new laws with openness and transparency. So it is in a spirit of continuing to build trust with the Australian people that Labor will move these amendments. We welcome the amendments that the government will move today. We will support the amendments, as they go some way towards fixing problems with the bill. In addition, we look to moving our own amendments to fully capture the recommendations of the scrutiny of bills committee and to solve these issues in this very important bill. I have to say, a lack of due diligence and accountability has been the calling card of the Morrison government. I commend the scrutiny of bills committee for their work on this important piece of legislation.

We used to be able to trust the Morrison government with our borders. But, sadly, that does not appear to be the case anymore. In March this year, with the arrival of the Ruby Princess, Prime Minister Morrison said: 'The Australian government has also banned cruise ships from foreign ports … from arriving at Australian ports.' The Prime Minister said on that same day that there 'will be some bespoke arrangements that we put in place directly under the command of the Australian Border Force to ensure that the relevant protections are put in place'. Four days later, after the Prime Minister's remarks, on 19 March the Ruby Princess was allowed to disembark its 2,700 passengers in Sydney. As we know, they included sick passengers who were allowed to spread across Australia and the globe.

So, despite banning cruise ships and putting Border Force in direct command with bespoke arrangements, our Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, did not stop the one boat that mattered—the boat that he promised to stop. And Australians have lived with those consequences. The Prime Minister has made light of this by pointing to the fact that the Commonwealth didn't have ultimate responsibility for these issues, and so he let himself off the hook. What does not let him off the hook is the fact that he made these very public undertakings to the Australian people. In the context of this debate about safety and screening at our borders, I call on the Prime Minister to put this debate in the context of COVID-19, and I call on the Prime Minister to apologise to the hundreds of Australians who've contracted COVID-19 because of the Ruby Princess, as well as to the family members of Australians who've lost their lives. The Ruby Princess is a disaster which has spread COVID-19 across Australia and the globe. It's responsible for over 1,000 cases of COVID-19; 30 tragic deaths; the north-west Tasmanian outbreak, which included 11 deaths; and 127 of the cases that I spoke about before. We cannot forget that allowing the Ruby Princess to dock in Sydney, despite the Prime Minister's undertakings that he would manage the situation, has been a big human tragedy. Over 30 Australians have lost their lives as a result of it.

In the short time that's available, I want to draw attention to issues around the Commonwealth and the ABF. When it comes to our borders, the buck should and does stop with the Commonwealth. No amount of buck-passing by the Prime Minister or his ministers absolves them of this responsibility, a responsibility which is outlined within the Constitution. We've also seen the disaster of the number of aeroplane arrivals claiming asylum, with an absolute explosion of over 100,000 aeroplane arrivals in Australia claiming asylum. We've seen Peter Dutton's half-a-billion-dollar Paladin blunder and we've also seen a litany of other Home Affairs failures. In concluding this debate today, I want to reflect that, when we're looking at standards of security at our borders and a robust system of training and testing, it's right that we have a government that pays attention to the issues in the legislation that's before us today. But we can see in that legislation significant holes that need to be fixed by amendment today, and we have seen a litany of other Home Affairs failures at Australia's borders.

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

It's really good to be here today, from my electorate office in Brunswick, to join this debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. I'm very glad that we've got the virtual parliament access working so I'm able to contribute to this debate.

As Senator Duniam noted in his second reading speech, this bill 'improves the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports'. We support that, so the Greens will be supporting this bill. I'll come to some specific comments about this bill later. First, I want to take the opportunity, given we're talking about airports, to speak about the state of aviation in these difficult times that we're currently in. The COVID-19 pandemic is, of course, having massive impacts on our society. My heart goes out to people who have lost loved ones, people who are still suffering with the illness, and people who are finding getting through this pandemic really, really tough.

In particular, COVID-19 has had, and will continue to have, significant impacts on our aviation sector, from the people who will be employed doing security checks at the airports through to people who are employed in the airline industry. We've seen a massive drop-off in flights, and, of course, one of our airlines is currently under administration. It is a travesty that our government have refused to support Virgin. They should have taken meaningful action to support one of Australia's two largest domestic carriers during the crisis. Instead, they allowed it to go into administration and we still don't know what state—

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll go to Senator Stoker and we will return to Senator Rice when we can.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's an excellent adaptation, Mr Acting Deputy President. I rise to speak in favour of the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. Before the advent of COVID-19, 38 million people travelled through Australian airports and marine ports annually. Like the many Australians who work for our airlines, our airports, tourism operators and business travel companies, I'm really looking forward to seeing that level of movement, that kind of volume of passengers, return once the restrictions we currently face are eased. So many livelihoods, and indeed lives, depend on Australia maintaining its reputation and its record for being one of the safest places in the world to travel. That's why, as technology develops and the risk landscape evolves, as those who would seek to do us harm come up with ever more creative ways to go about it, the coalition government is doing all that is necessary to maintain that reputation for being a secure, trusted destination.

Let me explain what this bill does to contribute to that important result for all Australians. The first thing it does, and this is quite significant, is create powers for aviation security inspectors to engage in covert testing of aviation industry participants' security systems. That is a whole lot of industry speak for saying that it's really important that people who work in, particularly, aviation security, but it is also true of maritime security, are able to run tests—

Senator Rice interjecting—

It's really important that people who are working in the security space in our airports are able to conduct tests that reflect the nature of the items that might be smuggled through our airports. They need to be able to test the kinds of scenarios that might arise in the event of a terrorist scenario. And they need to be able to do it in a way that is real enough to equip the people working in these roles with the skills they need to be able to respond swiftly and with confidence in the event that the worst did happen.

The bill also makes for sensible precautions. It means that, for instance, the weapons that would be used in conducting these types of test scenarios are dummy ones. They're not actually live weapons. They aren't live bombs. They're dummy devices. They're able to be used within airports and in mock-type scenarios to help the people who need to work in these environments, using ever-evolving new technology, to learn the skills they need to be able to adapt when it really matters. What pops into the mind of many people when they hear that is, 'Well, hold on, we've got plenty of laws in this country that say you can't have a bomb hoax at an airport. That itself is a crime,' and that is a good pick-up by those people who noticed it. So one thing that this bill also does is to make it clear that when people who work as security officers engage in these training exercises, or when training officers or inspectors come to airports and run these types of exercises, and in doing so introduce items that look like they pose a serious threat and could be construed as a hoax, they aren't actually liable under civil or criminal law for the fact of that mock scenario. So that's another important thing that the bill does.

It also clarifies and aligns the legislative basis in a consistent way across the country for training and accrediting people with qualifications for undertaking these important screening roles. As I've mentioned, the shifting technology landscape is important in security screening, and so it's important that there are opportunities for people who have been doing this work for some time to access professional education that continues to update their skills as time passes. It's also important to make sure that the training that people are receiving is sufficiently tailored to the nature of the work, not just, say, the kind of general security training that someone who might become a security guard at a nightclub, for instance, has undertaken. There is a different set of skills that's required at an airport and that is clarified by this bill. But consistency among the different places in Australia is also clarified, to make sure that we are making it easy for people who are working in this field to have their qualifications recognised wherever they go.

Finally, the bill also provides for the creation of legislative instruments, like regulations, to make provision for the nuts and bolts of making this stuff happen—the provision of identity cards, for instance, for people who work in security screening roles and provision for what their uniforms should be like so that people who undertake these roles can be easily identified, particularly in an emergency. So these are, in broad terms, the goals of the legislation.

In many ways, this is a simple and somewhat unglamorous bill. Like a lot of the hard work of government, it's not necessarily shiny or the kind of thing that people want to have reported on the front page of the paper. But it really does matter, because security staff who are up to date with how to use the latest technology, who are able to identify up-to-date threats from those who would seek to do Australians harm and who are at the top of their game because they are being regularly tested on their ability to implement those skills on the job are the people who are best placed to keep Australians safe when it matters most, and that's something that should give all Australians great confidence.

I've said something about the covert security testing that will be facilitated by this bill, and it's worth explaining the situations in which inspectors and testers will have the benefit of exceptions from criminal and civil liability for their activities in training and testing people to do this work well. The circumstances in which a person would get that kind of an immunity are where the test is, firstly, conducted in good faith—they're doing it for the right reasons in the course of their work, for instance. The second criterion is that the test doesn't seriously endanger the health or safety of any person, because it's important that both people at work and passengers don't have their experience become an unsafe one as a consequence of these activities. The final criterion is that it doesn't result in significant loss of, or damage to, property. Where those three criteria are met by a person who is helping with testing and training exercises, they will get the benefit of that immunity from civil or criminal liability. It is important that we give people who are engaged in this work the ability to go about their business knowing that they're not at risk of breaching other laws like, for instance, the one I mentioned about there being bans on bomb hoaxes in our airports.

When I go to the topic, though, of the training provisions of this bill, it's worth going back to 2016, when Mr Michael Carmody completed an inquiry into aviation and maritime transport security education and training in Australia. It had a look at all of the different types of training that were done in this area, the outcomes that were being achieved by the people who had undergone that training when they were assessed and the overall quality of the training options that existed in the aviation and maritime sectors. He made a bunch of recommendations for its improvement.

One of the things that that inquiry identified as being important was the need for clarity about what constitutes sufficient qualifications under national standards. So he suggested the introduction of standardised qualifications for people who undergo this type of work on a day-to-day basis, distinguishing it from other types of security laws, and he also highlighted the importance of there being national tests so that those people who were engaged in this work were reaching a consistent standard nationwide. He highlighted the need for ongoing on-the-job training and a continuing education and professional development program to be available for people who work in this area so that they could keep up with changes in terrorists' tactics—for those who are responsible for identifying them day-to-day, that's an important factor—and also have the ability to keep up with the technology that's being used to identify these items when they're on the job.

So this bill, consistent with those recommendations, acts upon the suggestion that there should be a more specific security screening qualification, and it introduces national minimum standards for on-the-job training and continuing professional development for screening officers and it brings in national competency testing for screening officers. You might be thinking: 'What if you're someone who has been working in this field for many years and you've been doing it either with basic on-the-job training or on the basis of a more generalised security qualification? What does that mean for you?' That's a pretty fair question. The people who fall into that category will get recognition of those parts of their skillset that are relevant to their work. They will get accreditation that reflects the skill level they've reached. They will also get the benefit of a 12-month period of transition so that, if there are little extra modules that they might need to pick up in order to make sure they're meeting the national standards, they'll have some time to do that. We don't want to be unreasonable when we're asking this of people, particularly in an industry that's facing some disruption at the moment. The 12-month period will make it much easier for people to adapt to this in their career.

There's also something to be said for the strength of the endorsement that this bill has got from parts of our community. While the Department of Home Affairs has explained why this bill is necessary, I always think it's nice to be able to look to somebody beyond the department to see whether or not it is getting the same kind of encouragement from elsewhere. This bill has received support from Dr John Coyne. He is the head of the Strategic Policing and Law Enforcement Program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, an organisation that I really respect. In the course of his submission, Dr Coyne highlighted that the provision of explicit powers for security inspectors to conduct covert security systems would provide a much-needed additional mechanism to maintain the security of Australia's aviation sector. He noted that, as screening technology improves and terrorists innovate, the minimum level of training for screening officers must also increase if they are to continue to mitigate risks.

So that's what we're doing. We're arming the people who, every day in their work, protect us by detecting threats and managing risk and who are willing to put themselves on the line as they go about making sure that they keep Australians who are travelling safe. As we give them the tools that they need to do their jobs well, it's important that we as a society make sure that we continue to look out for their interests by making sure they are at the top of their game and that we look out for Australians by equipping them to protect them as best as possible. We need to make sure it all works together to achieve something that really is quite big, and that is a safer Australian transport sector, with flow-on benefits for trade, for travel, for business relationships and for Australia's attractiveness as a safe and fun place to visit and to do business.

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

by leave—I heard from workers from the Transport Workers Union recently, and it was a privilege to hear from these extraordinary people about how they are speaking up, even as the government is refusing to back them. It's not just that the government has refused to back Virgin. They also haven't supported the Dnata workers—workers who were a big part of the transport supply chain. If you caught a flight in Australia, odds are good that a Dnata worker has made that flight possible, by doing the cleaning that is so critical to keeping people safe, and providing the catering. They don't get the recognition or appreciation they deserve, but they make a crucial difference. The government has failed them.

There is a significant amount of work to be done in the aviation sector—way beyond what we are considering tonight—that this government is failing to do. This government is letting down Australian workers and Australians around the country. Aviation has been affected massively by this pandemic. The security screening we are talking about tonight—for those workers who are working there, it's going to be a long time before the same number of workers are back on the job as pre-pandemic.

I'm here in my office in Melbourne—not in Canberra, obviously—because of the pandemic. I haven't flown for over six months. And it is the same for so many other frequent flyers—business people, people not flying around the country for tourism or visiting loved ones. Even if we get a vaccine, aviation is not going to just snap back. The fact that we are here tonight with this technology—as good as I hope it is continuing to be—means that we are not all going to go back to flying at the drop of a hat. We will consider whether flying interstate for a meeting is actually the best way to meet. Would a remote meeting or a video link actually suffice? Critically, should we be flying when there are other options for meeting that don't have the carbon pollution that a flight has? In an environment when there is no carbon budget left, reducing flying makes an awful lot of sense.

So we desperately need a plan for aviation for Australia—way beyond considering security arrangements as we are considering tonight—that takes account of the impacts of this pandemic and the imperative to reduce our carbon pollution to zero. There is a future for aviation that navigates a path through these huge issues, but it needs to be explicitly identified and planned for. That's what a government should be doing, developing such a plan in collaboration with workers, with businesses, with NGOs and with communities, to ensure that workers are looked after, to ensure a future for aviation businesses, for airports and for the workers in security screening. We need a plan that takes account of the essential transport that aviation provides in this far-flung country of ours.

We Greens will keep banging the drum about this, because it's such a critical need. Having a plan for aviation would mean that we could see whether the actions we are taking now in response to the pandemic are the appropriate ones, whether they do line up as being part of a sensible, strategic, just and sustainable plan for the future of aviation.

In this context, let me now address some issues concerning the bill that we are debating tonight. The Greens support the steps the government is taking here to improve airport security. I would reiterate, however, a number of concerns that we raised in additional comments in the committee report. The explanatory memorandum specifies that security testing changes will enable the government to meet recommendations accepted from the Inspector of Transport Security and the International Civil Aviation Organization to expand the scope of system tests for a wider range or security measures but without providing any information on where these recommendations are from. When the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee examined this bill, this report had not been published.

An additional aspect in this bill is the fact that it will allow the secretary of the department to determine the training and qualification requirements for screening officers. In addition, the secretary can actually exempt a class of screening officers from one or more of the requirements determined if exceptional circumstances exist. We are glad to see the government is moving an amendment—acting on the scrutiny of bills considerations and recommendations—that information be published on the number of exemptions, but we believe there needs to be much more transparency and much more information about what is actually occurring for these exemptions to occur.

We will be supporting the government's amendment, but I also foreshadow that we will be moving our own amendment to provide more transparency and information on this point. Overall, however, as I have said, the Greens will be supporting this bill, but the coalition government needs to be doing more—much more—to support safe aviation and support the workers in the aviation sector. But we support this small step.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. To set the scene, I think it's very important to reflect on where we have come over the last few years in terms of the national security of our nation and the priority that this government has placed upon the security of all Australians and the security of our borders. The first priority of any government—and, certainly, the absolute first priority of this government—is to keep our community safe from those who seek to do us harm. Since 2014, and before that, the government has strengthened our national defences, particularly against terrorism, with the investment of an additional $2.3 billion to that end. Australia faces national security challenges that continue to evolve, and we only need to look at, particularly, the growth of cyberattacks, both on governments and on businesses right around the world, to know that the national security environment is one that is constantly changing. It's a constant arms race to make sure that Australians have the right tools, the right training and the right preparation to make sure that, with all the various ways that our national security is challenged—and it is challenged—we can continue to maintain that safety for Australia: for Australian individuals and Australian businesses.

We need to keep our legislation under constant review. We need to keep the capabilities of our people on the ground under constant review. We need to make sure that they are always equipped to deal with the myriad challenges that come their way. The Australian government has passed 19 tranches of legislation since 2014, when the National Terrorism Threat Level was raised, covering matters including the detention of high-threat terrorists and strengthening control orders. Our current National Terrorism Threat Level is at 'probable'. Since 2001, 86 people, including seven who were juveniles when charged, have been convicted of terrorism related offences. Fifty of these are currently serving custodial sentences, and 20 more people are currently before the courts for terrorism offences, one of whom was a juvenile when charged. Since September 2014, when the National Terrorism Threat Level was raised, 102 people have been charged as a result of 51 counterterrorism related responses around Australia. As we all know, there have been a number of attacks and a number of counterterrorism disruption operations that disrupted imminent attack planning in Australia.

This commitment to national security also flows through to our commitment to maintaining the security of our airports and aviation. Again, top priority must be to keep Australians safe. The disrupted terrorist attack in Sydney in 2017 demonstrated a level of sophistication not seen before in Australia and reinforced that aviation remains a high-profile target for terrorists. Although we already have strong and comprehensive aviation security, it is essential that we remain ahead of this evolving threat. A range of measures are being implemented to further strengthen security at airports and at mail and air cargo facilities. These measures include new screening technology at major and regional Australian airports, increasing the AFP counterterrorism first-response presence at airports, upgrading inbound cargo and international mail screening technology, strengthening outbound air cargo screening, and improving the training and accreditation of screening staff at airports. To complement these improvements, parliament has passed new laws to give police broader powers to conduct identity checks at major airports and to direct a person to move on from the airport where they pose a criminal, safety or security threat.

All these initiatives together, from the broad national security initiatives to these particular measures targeting transport security, obviously may seem slightly less relevant to people in these times when air travel is highly restricted. But we must always remember that, this COVID pandemic period willing, we will return to flying on a regular basis. We continue to rely very heavily on air transport links, both to get our exports out and to receive vital imports. So we must remember that all the measures that have been taken and measures such as these that continue to be taken are vitally important to the continuing wellbeing of Australians and the Australian economy.

Moving on specifically to this bill, the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. It will establish explicit powers for aviation security inspectors to conduct security system testing and will create a legislative basis for requiring screening officers to have completed relevant training prior to performing screening functions at security controlled airports and maritime ports. In particular, the bill will create powers for aviation security inspectors to conduct covert testing of aviation industry participants' aviation security systems to assess compliance with the aviation act in regulated locations such as airports, aircraft and cargo examination facilities. Obviously, in these sorts of situations, testing such as this is vitally important to make sure that the systems are pressure tested to make sure that when there is a real breach or an attempted breach of our security systems the systems have been pressure tested to the utmost extent possible.

The legislation will also clarify that aviation security inspectors are exempt from civil or criminal liability in certain circumstances where they are covertly testing aviation industry participants' security system, including where they are using items that resemble or mimic weapons, such as inert handguns or simulated IEDs, to test these systems. It also allows for a legislative instrument to be made determining training qualifications and other requirements for screening officers relating to the exercise of power of the performance of screening functions and to determine requirements relating to the use of identity cards and uniforms and makes further technical amendments to the aviation act and the maritime act. These measures respond directly to recommendations of the Inspector-General of Transport Security and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

As Senator Stoker very clearly outlined in her capacity as chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, this bill has been reviewed. It was also looked at by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Following that consideration, the government has agreed to adopt some of the committee's recommendations. The amendments are relatively minor. They don't necessarily change the substance of the bill, but they do make some minor improvements to the operations of the bill. They include changing the term 'weapon' to 'test weapon' and inserting a definition of 'test weapon' that makes it clear that a functional weapon can't be used for testing, only an inert or replica one. A note is inserted that makes it clear that aviation security inspectors must not endanger the health or safety of the public in the performance of their duties or the inspector will lose the immunity from civil or criminal liability. This is to clarify that an aviation security inspector could not rely on immunity from prosecution if they used a live weapon to conduct tests. The amendments will also include a requirement that the number of exemptions to training requirements for screening officers granted by the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs be published on the department's website. Again, as Senator Stoker very clearly outlined, there is also the necessary recognition of prior learning for the many very well trained and highly competent security screening officers we have in place at the moment. So this is not imposing unnecessary new training on those officers. It is making sure we keep all of our people up to date and as efficient in doing these tasks as we possibly can.

Once again this government has a very clear priority in addressing the security of all Australians. Our first priority is to keep the nation safe. This bill is a small but very important step in doing just that.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Security of its citizens is the core function of any government. All of us in this place take this extremely seriously. Threats are ever-changing, and we as a society must continue to innovate and remain vigilant. Stopping terrorism remains a key national security concern—one this government is unashamedly committed to.

Those who seek to prevent terrorism must always be given appropriate tools, training and powers to ensure that they are able to keep us safe. This Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 is measured, appropriate, well-considered and forward thinking. It represents good government listening and acting. Whilst COVID-19 means that air traffic is at its most limited in living memory, we as a responsible and intelligent government have already planned for life after coronavirus. Ensuring our national security when planes begin to fly again is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. Vigilance is the price of our freedom.

Aviation security inspectors in the Department of Home Affairs play an utterly critical role in ensuring Australia's aviation security is first class. Australia is extremely lucky we have avoided the kinds of tragedies we have seen in other parts of the world to this point. We must always remain alert to these threats and seek to stay well ahead of them. Criminals are sophisticated and adjust to new technology and methods as quickly as they are created. This bill is designed to equip screeners with the skills and technology needed to stay ahead of the curve. The increasing complexity around criminal activity means that constantly updating, upskilling and retraining screeners is an unfortunate but necessary reality.

Like any good government policy, this has been done in response to a well-informed, thorough and independent inquiry. This bill will allow for an appropriate screener training and accreditation scheme. This is important because quality assurance in this area is critical. This bill creates a clear standard of competency for the screening workforce. This is just good common sense. We know all too well what happens when those entrusted with important security matters lack sufficient training. It can lead to disasters like the one we have seen in Victoria. Quality assurance is critical.

The screener training and accreditation scheme strengthens all training requirements for screeners at airports, seaports and air cargo facilities. It creates a well researched framework for new screening qualifications. This means new entrants will be amongst the best trained in the world. Screeners will also be required to meet the national standards of skill and competence and will be required to pass annual accreditation—in other words, lifelong training to adapt to issues as they evolve.

This bill will also ensure that best practice is followed when it comes to carrying out regulatory compliance activities. This is critical. All of our Public Service should be of the highest quality. This bill creates a framework for the introduction of a national screener training and accreditation program and also allows the departmental secretary to prescribe requirements for skills and training as they evolve. This is an important step, as expert recommendations and flexibility will be the tools needed going forward to ensure that we are ready, agile and capable of adapting to threats as they arise.

One important part of this bill is the ability of aviation security inspectors to conduct tests at locations beyond screening points without the risk of breaching any other laws. This is an important step in ensuring that the whole of our airports is able to be secure and safe. It is no good to engage in half measures around these sorts of matters; those who seek to harm our citizens will not. By exempting aviation security inspectors from prosecution when they are engaging in covert testing of security systems we are making sure our airports are ready for and resilient to any threats that may arise. This bill allows an aviation security inspector to conduct covert tests of aviation security systems at all regulated locations under the aviation act. Again, this is just commonsense thinking. Prospective terrorist attacks will not occur under supervised or controlled conditions.

It is important to pressure test all systems. Just as football players train to simulate game day, so should our security systems be prepared for any eventuality. Inspectors will use test pieces that simulate weapons and other contraband during tests. This goes to the true purpose of this bill, which is to ensure our security systems are as rigorous and ready for a real threat as possible. These tests will be coordinated and supervised by the Department of Home Affairs and local law enforcement. To allow realistic tests to occur, the bill amends the aviation act to ensure that aviation security inspectors can perform the full complement of their duties. To do this, they are provided with an express authority to undertake system security tests at security controlled airports and at aviation industry premises located outside the boundary of such airports. This is a sensible, pragmatic step that acknowledges that terrorists could seek to target any weakness in our security apparatus.

Another important power granted to our security inspectors by this bill is the ability for aviation security inspectors to conduct system tests on aircraft, providing, of course, they give reasonable notice to operators. This balances the twin goals of minimising commercial disruption and ensuring that tests are realistic. Most importantly, there will be immunity from prosecution, both civil and criminal, under laws of all tiers government for security inspectors if they are conducting a test that is sensible and critical in good faith. It is ridiculous to think that this has not been the case previously. Obviously, there would be exceptions in the case of inspectors who go too far and risk injury or serious property damage. It is most important to ensure that situations like bomb-training exercises do not open our hardworking officers up to litigation. These system tests mimic possible terrorist attack pathways and probe for potential weaknesses or deficiencies. Inspector test-screening authorities are able to meet their regulatory obligations and detect the presence of a fake weapon and deny entry to the person carrying it.

Overall, this bill is an important step towards ensuring that our air travel industry remains one of the safest and best in the world. As a country which is vast and wide and distant from much of the globe, it is critically important that we have an airline industry that maintains best practice in all areas. I commend the bill to the Senate. When Australians do eventually get back in the air, it will be important to ensure that they do so in the knowledge that they are safe.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019, which relates to the testing and training of Australia's aviation screening inspectors. This bill looks at two cohorts. Firstly, there are the screeners themselves—those screeners who you walk past every time you fly, with the beep beep of the archway and the putting of your bags through the X-rays. Those in this chamber know a lot about flying. The other cohort are the security inspectors who work for the Department of Home Affairs. They look at the training, and the compliance of that training, of those screeners. The purpose of this bill is to create a vital component of ensuring our aviation screeners are appropriately qualified for the work that they do in protecting all Australians from threats to air travel. It amends key parts of the Aviation Transport Security Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act to ensure a proper regime of training and inspection will exist.

Firstly, it creates a national training and accreditation scheme for the private industry contractors that the airports employ to provide screening services in Australia's airports. Without this sort of training and accreditation, we run the risk of having poorly qualified people overseeing vital security tasks at our airports. As a senator for Victoria, I've seen all too closely the damage that's done by security guards who are neither trained properly nor have their work overseen. The quarantine regime in Victoria has let the coronavirus pandemic spread throughout Victoria and into the rest of Australia. So having the right skills and qualifications for the work is, obviously, an important part of any security system.

Secondly, the bill ensures that the government's transport security inspectors can carry out the important compliance tasks that they have responsibility for. As you can imagine, there are all sorts of ways of testing these systems, and they need to have the sorts of tools and replica and imitation weapons that can be tested for. Without these amendments, they run the risk of prosecution from inadvertently offending state and other laws involving firearms, bombs and so on. The screener training and accreditation scheme strengthens the training requirements for screeners at airports, seaports and air cargo facilities. It creates a framework for a new screening qualification to be mandated for all screeners entering the industry. Existing screeners' qualifications will continue to be recognised. Screeners will be required to meet a national standard of competency. They will be required to pass annual accreditation testing before making independent screening decisions or clearing cargo for uplift.

As with all parts of technology, everything changes, and changes rapidly, in this space. X-ray machines that are being used in airports these days change rapidly, and how they view items is of the utmost importance, as you can well imagine. The way people are trained to use these machines is, equally, as vitally important as the machines themselves. How someone views, let's say, a pistol in a piece of hand luggage—whether it is lying on its side or front-on or at any of the different angles that it could be seen from—is important in case one makes a mistake and sees just a straight bit of metal or something that doesn't look obviously like a pistol. So it's absolutely vital that this sort of accreditation stays up to date with new technologies.

Our aviation security inspectors, who are part of the Department of Home Affairs, as I said, play a pivotal role in ensuring Australia's aviation security systems remain resilient against terrorist attacks. This bill introduces measures to clarify the ability of inspectors to carry out this important work. In particular, inspectors will be able to conduct system tests with test pieces at locations beyond screening points in an airport terminal without the risk of committing an offence under other laws, such as those relating to bomb hoaxes.

What is a system test? A system test is a compliance activity conducted by aviation security inspectors to assess whether a person is complying with the security obligations established in the Aviation Security Act. It tests the screeners' ability to find goods or contraband, as they are meant to do. A system test mimics possible terrorist attack pathways and probes for potential weak points in aviation security arrangements which an adversary may wish to exploit. For example, inspectors may place a test piece, such as a test weapon—and that might be an imitation firearm or a non-functional simulated improvised explosive device—in carry-on luggage and subject the bag to security screening at a passenger screening point at an airport terminal. From this, inspectors are able to assess whether a screening authority and its operators are able to meet their regulatory obligations to detect the presence of the test weapon and deny it entry to the sterile area of an airport. To ensure that these tests are as realistic as possible at the screening points, test pieces represent items that may be used to conduct unlawful acts, such as weapons, bombs, bomb parts and the like. This is done by design to avoid causing harm or injury to aviation security inspectors, airport staff and the general public. Test weapons are not functional. For example, simulated improvised explosive devices cannot be detonated and pose no risk to people.

This bill and the amendments this bill will bring about are important for keeping our security at airports up to date. I commend the bill to the House.

Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very good bill, and one of my favourite committees, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, has produced a very good report. The Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 is a key bill in the way that we guarantee what is fundamentally the most important thing that we do. National security, of course, remains the first priority of the Morrison government. You've heard many of the previous speakers, many of whom are my colleagues, explain the nature of this bill to you in some detail. They have given you an indication of what the bill is about. They have stated what the bill does. They have said what changes were made in response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee inquiry. They went through the changes in the bill and what they mean for the conduct of systems tests, and they spoke about systems tests in great detail. They mentioned the screeners training and accreditation scheme. They went in and explained from beginning to end what a systems test is, and they also explained what test pieces are currently used for system tests. So we've well and truly gone through the bill, and we've well and truly gone through a number of explanations of every single part of the bill.

Let me talk in a very general way about the bill and what lies behind training. This is not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination. It will probably astonish most Australians to think that we aren't already doing what we are proposing in this bill. It's a simple bill, and it's a simple procedure. It's something which is absolutely essential to an activity that many of us do all the time, which is entrust our lives to fly in a terrorist environment. It's functional. It lays down the conditions that must be met before these kinds of tests are conducted. I have to say, given my background, that the military do it every single day. It can be dangerous in a military environment. It can be dangerous in war, when you still must train and you use a weapon which must be both a training weapon and a functional weapon. This, of course, is not what we are proposing in this bill. We are proposing something quite different.

Still, things can go wrong. Many years ago, as a very new helicopter pilot, I was involved in a search-and-rescue exercise off an Army training area near Tin Can Bay in Queensland. In order to 'test the system', as it was explained to us, one of our pilots was put in a raft and put in the sea and we were to find him. Things can go wrong and you've got to take risks if you're going to train well. This was not good training, because it started to get dark, we couldn't find the pilot and he spent the whole night out there in a raft in shark infested waters.

This kind of bill, if it is followed seriously and if the moderation and the supervision of the screeners is allowed to happen, will not result in such exercises. Going back some decades now, one of our intelligence agencies was involved in a raid on a hotel which went wrong. They were testing the system, of course. That went badly wrong—to everyone's embarrassment—and changed the nature of that security organisation. Again, this bill should prevent that kind of thing from happening.

In Iraq as the chief of operations for the war in Iraq, I was responsible for the security of Baghdad International Airport. The movements in and out of Baghdad International Airport were extraordinary. Hundreds and hundreds of flights per day were bringing in and taking out weapons, equipment and personnel. We discovered by sheer accident that an Iraqi baggage handler, who was in fact working for the insurgency, had decided to put an explosive device onto a pallet that was about to be loaded into a wide-bodied aircraft. What we're proposing in this bill is a little bit different from the situation in Baghdad International Airport, for the simple reason that half the people who were screeners and baggage handlers were actually working for the insurgency. That explosive device would have blown the aeroplane to bits, and that's exactly what this bill is trying to prevent. Fortunately for us, the explosive device that was placed on a pallet to be put into the aircraft actually fell off the pallet through sheer accident and didn't explode in the aircraft. The lesson, of course, is that you can be lucky. But your luck is increased if in fact you have system tests, you have screeners who do realistic training, and you can supervise and conduct tests that are realistic.

Back in 2017, there was a certain amount of luck involved in the prevention of a bomb being placed on board a wide-bodied aircraft out of Sydney. The aim of this bill is to minimise the role that luck plays. The harder you work and the smarter you operate and the more realistically you train and prepare, the less the role luck will play in any situation which is critical to all of us, such as boarding an aircraft and flying and hoping to be alive at the other end.

I would like to move slightly off this now and address an issue that Senator Rice raised when she spoke. Good on her for giving support to the bill, but she equated this bill with a need to achieve zero emissions in the airline industry. Well, that's fantastic. But I just wonder, regardless of how clever we are, what will actually achieve efficiencies in relation to the airline industry and in relation to climate change. It's not going to be wishful thinking or a statement of an objective that does this, for example, zero emissions by 2030. It's not going to be by holding the view that we should destroy the economy by going to zero emissions by 2030—because if the economy is not functioning, the airline industry will certainly not be functioning. If we remove the need for aviation because we've removed the economy we have certainly not achieved an awful lot at all. We will create development in aviation in exactly the same way as this government addresses climate change—through technology. If it can be done it will be done through technology and not by wishful thinking, and this is the approach that I would recommend to Senator Rice. She should look at the coalition's technology roadmap and apply it if she thinks that this is relevant in relation to this bill.

Senator Brockman, of course, brought up the subject of national security. He was quite right to point this out. National security in relation to the aviation transport system is where the rubber hits the road. National security is not something which is conducted only by the military, the police or Home Affairs; national security is something which everyone, every element of the nation, is responsible for. National security applies to all of us. I often say that security of the nation takes a whole nation. In relation to this bill, where the rubber hits the road is where you can achieve security yet still allow the nation to function, still allow us to achieve prosperity through the market and still allow us to progress in a number of different ways. The reason that it takes a nation to secure a nation is that if we think that just one part of this nation, such as the military, will give us a security then we are going to forget that a critical part of national security is self-reliance.

Self-reliance, of course, is the basis of our very sovereignty. Sovereignty is critical to us. We really are only just learning, and being reminded by COVID, how incredibly important our sovereignty is. Sovereignty is not something which exists in one point in space; sovereignty is something which you can have more or less of in accordance with the forces that act on you as a nation. The self-reliance that we need doesn't apply just to manufacturers or weaponry or spare parts; it applies to the processes and the culture in your nation. As I said before, most Australians would be astonished to discover that we weren't already doing the activities that are permitted in this bill. So, when you get down to the bottom level, the most detailed level, national security depends on aviation screeners being very well trained and very capable.

I speak about self-reliance, and self-reliance is critical in manufacturing in relation to defence, cyber and a thousand different areas. Self-reliance in this nation is being able to do what we need. It's not what we would like to do; we don't need to do everything. If we did everything we'd be like North Korea—not trading with anyone, developing everything internally. And some people call that self-sufficiency. Where we are at the moment, and not just in relation to screeners at airports and manufacturing, is that market forces deliver prosperity. But isn't it strange that the market forces within the aviation industry have not delivered the kind of security that we are talking about in this bill? Only authorities or governments can deliver security, and that's what this bill is all about.

As I said before, this is a good bill. It's not revolutionary but it is a good bill. This can be achieved without great disruption to what's going on and by accommodating individuals. This bill is essential. It can be done safely, and it must be done, given the importance of the aviation industry to us, in an environment replete with terrorism. We should do it now, because we have a hiatus in the aviation industry where we can make change, and when we come out of that change we should come out of the change roaring. We owe this to the travelling public and we owe this to the screeners, of course, who use this on a daily basis. This is a very, very serious business and we must make it a safety business. I commend the bill. I see the need for it. I think there are very, very good reasons for proceeding with it.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up the debate on the Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019. I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate. Australia's transport sector is one of the safest and most secure in the world. However, the sector remains an enduring target for terrorists. We need to ensure that security arrangements remain robust and responsive in the face of an evolving threat environment.

The Transport Security Amendment (Testing and Training) Bill 2019 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to improve the effectiveness of screening at Australia's security controlled airports and security regulated ports. Security screeners perform a vital role in securing our airports and seaports. They prevent weapons, such as firearms or explosives, from making it onto an aircraft or cruise ship, ensuring that we can all travel safely and securely.

The bill will establish the necessary framework to ensure that the education, training and testing requirements for screeners remain effective and flexible in an increasingly complex security environment now and into the future. The bill also provides appropriate legislative protection so that it is clear that aviation security inspectors may continue to undertake compliance activities across a range of relevant locations in order to protect against unlawful interference.

The bill has been reviewed by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee recommended that the bill be passed. In response to the advice of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee I will be, in the committee stage, moving several relatively minor but important amendments to the bill, which I will address at that time. Again, I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.