Senate debates

Monday, 27 March 2017

Bills

Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016; Second Reading

6:22 pm

Photo of Malcolm RobertsMalcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and of Australia I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 and to address some important issues relating to aviation safety. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to prevent individuals with links to serious or organised crime gaining access to Australia's airports and ports. This is an important piece of legislation in relation to access to aviation and maritime areas and zones that will help prevent the use of aviation and maritime transport or offshore facilities in connection with serious organised crime.

The bill will strengthen the regulatory framework with common eligibility criteria between the Aviation Security Identification Card and Maritime Security Identification Card schemes; clarify the legislative basis for undertaking security checking of Australian Security Identification Card and Maritime Safety Identification Card applicants and holders; allow for regulations to prescribe penalties for offences against new, serious or organised crime requirements that are consistent with existing penalty provisions across both schemes; and insert an additional severability provision to provide guidance to court as to parliament's intention. The amendments, however, prescribe that the details be set by regulation, and these regulations will be made at a later time, giving the government power to set and alter them as it subsequently sees fit. Regulations will be made under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2035. I note that the bill implements recommendations from the National Ice Taskforce and the parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement.

While there does seem to be a pattern emerging with this government of legislation that continually seeks to give the state ever greater areas to restrict, control and punish actions not specifically related to the commission of a crime, there clearly are legitimate issues that this bill seeks to address. A significant question here is whether widening the purpose of transport security legislation will confuse the issue of transport security and targeting serious organised crime in the transport system. On balance, it would seem that it does not. A key related issue in regard to aviation security, however, is that Australia currently imposes a more stringent level of access control than that undertaken internationally. This poses significant costs and impediments to those who regularly use airfields. Given that the United States does not consider this necessary, the question must be asked why Australia would take such measures. The government's own Forsyth review into aviation safety regulation in 2014 found that Australian airfield security was already overburdensome, stating: 'Australia is applying a higher level of access control and background checking than is required by the international approach under Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,'—the Chicago convention—'which requires background checking for access to a safe, security restricted area.' The Forsyth review further stated:

the ASIC scheme has a significant regulatory impost on the industry as a whole

…   …   …

without delivering a commensurate security benefit.

The report recommended:

The Australian Government amends regulations so that background checks and the requirement to hold an Aviation Security Identification Card are only required for unescorted access to Security Restricted Areas, not for general airside access. This approach would align with international practice.

Obviously, applying a higher level of access control and background checking than is required or applied internationally does not magically make Australian aviation safer, just more overburdened and bureaucratic. Overly burdensome and bureaucratic: it seems we hear these words more and more. Seemingly it is an affliction creeping its way through more and more areas of Australian life. Perhaps we should call it the Australian disease. Implementing these recommendations of the Forsyth review to align Australia's efforts security regulations with the requirements of the Convention on International Civil Aviation would have significant benefits for both recreational and commercial aviation, with no adverse effect on aviation security. Moreover, I understand that this change is widely supported in the aviation sector.

I draw the attention of the Senate to this fact and strongly urge the government to implement the recommendations of the Forsyth review on aviation security without further delay. Overregulation will cost people money with no commensurate benefit. It adds to the cost of business and to the cost of living. Otherwise, One Nation supports this bill.

Comments

No comments