Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 amends the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988 to provide a more robust legal basis for air security officers to lawfully discharge their firearms on board aircraft. The air security officer program was introduced by the coalition government in December 2001 to address the threats of terrorism in the skies following the September 11 attacks. The presence of armed covert officers on domestic and international flights is part of a multilevel approach to enhancing security on flights in and from Australia. This measure is complemented by enhanced airport security procedures—better and more thorough screening, the presence of Australian Federal Police at airports and other security efforts. The air security officer program is another line of defence to ensure that the skies are safe for travellers.

Since December 2001, air security officers have been placed on a number of domestic and international flights to provide security for the Australian travelling public against the threat of hijackings. Many countries have similar programs, and the air security officer program introduced by the previous government meets international best practice. Australia also cooperates with the United States and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region to maintain security on board aircraft. Air security officers are highly trained in negotiation skills and defensive tactics, and the use of firearms is always intended to be employed as a last resort. The officers are trained to respond appropriately and in accordance with the level of threat. Thankfully, there have been no incidents requiring an air security officer to discharge their firearm. Perhaps this is a testament to the effectiveness of the scheme. Certainly, it is a program which the coalition regards as a legitimate and necessary component of aviation security.

At the moment, the legislative basis by which air security officers may lawfully discharge a firearm on an aircraft occurs via the periodic issuance of notices under regulation 144 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. These regulations permit air security officers to carry and discharge a firearm in the legal conduct of their duty without risk of prosecution. It has been suggested that the legal basis for this arrangement is unnecessarily cumbersome. The provision of such notices may also be inconsistent with the intent of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.

To provide greater certainty regarding the lawful conduct of air security officers, the legislation before us proposes to amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988 so that new regulations can be made under this legislation to permit air security officers to lawfully discharge their firearms without risk of prosecution. These amendments would also permit an extraterritorial provision applying to Australian aircraft or aircraft engaged in Australian international carriage. This is to permit an air security officer to lawfully discharge a firearm on board an Australian aircraft outside Australian territory.

The opposition supports the air security program and any legislative effort to improve its efficient functioning. It was, as I mentioned earlier, an initiative of the former government. It is an initiative that is valuable and should be maintained. I therefore in this debate call on the Rudd Labor government to guarantee its future. To do so would be a sign that it takes this component of aviation security seriously. I raise this point in the light of what is at best disturbing ambivalence from the Rudd Labor government regarding the air security officer program. Earlier this year, there was a spate of media articles flagging that the number of air security officers was to be cut by one-third. The media reports also claim that the Rudd Labor government will reduce the rest periods that air security officers are permitted to take at the end of long-haul flights and that it is considering plans to rotate air security officers to other areas of the Australian Federal Police for periods of three months—in other words, to take them out of their fundamental role. Obviously, these measures will seriously compromise the capacity of air security officers to protect the flight deck in a security emergency. Unfortunately, the response of the government to these concerns has been totally inadequate. It has simply failed to give any assurances about the continuation of this program. For example, I note that the recent budget failed to offer explicit funding for the air security officer program beyond this financial year, and I am informed that redundancy offers are currently being circulated to air security officers. This is clear evidence that the numbers are being reduced.

I also note the evasive answers offered by Senator Ludwig in the other place in response to some specific questions by the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. On 14 February this year, during questions without notice, Senator Ludwig failed to provide any assurance that the Rudd government would not cut the air security program by the levels flagged in the media—in other words, by at least a third. Instead, the representative of the Attorney-General in the other place couched his answers in weasel words by citing ‘operational requirements’. However, in spite of his attempts to fudge, he did admit that there had been changes in the presence of air security officers on international flights. So I ask the government again: will it guarantee the future of the air security officer program? Are the changes cited by Senator Ludwig simply code words for ‘reductions’? Will the government keep the air security program at the level of the previous coalition government? Or does the government intend to play fast and loose with the security of the air-travelling public and cut the initiative further?

I appreciate that the operation of this program depends, at least to some extent, on it being secret, on people not knowing which flights the security officers are travelling on, because no-one has suggested that the nation can reasonably bear the cost of there being an officer of this nature on every aircraft. So there does need to be some level of confidentiality about the operations. But, if the service is not being reduced, if the government has nothing to hide, it could at least come out and guarantee that the service is being maintained at the levels that applied in the past and that there will be no reduction in the number of security officers being employed. Why are redundancy offers currently being circulated amongst employees? Unless the government can give some confident assurances to the people of Australia that this program is not being wound back, the public will have a right to be at least deeply suspicious that a veil of confidentiality is being used to cover up a sinister winding-back of this program. Who knows what risks there may be to the Australian travelling public?

I now turn to some of the particulars of the bill. I noted earlier that the coalition is happy to support any legislative amendment to make more efficient and effective the functioning of the air security officer program. One question I do have concerns the application of any extraterritorial regulation made under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. In raising this matter, I accept the need for an extraterritorial provision to apply to air services officers on an aircraft outside Australian territory. However, the opposition is concerned that such a provision will not lead to additional Australian regulatory requirements on overseas airlines in foreign jurisdictions. I refer specifically to section 134 of the bill, which states:

(1)

Any provisions of the regulations may be expressed to apply to and in relation to any of the following:

(a)

Australian aircraft;

(b)

aircraft (other than Australian aircraft) engaged in Australian international carriage;

(c)

passengers on board, and members of the crew of, aircraft referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);while the aircraft are outside Australian territory.

Clearly, the above provision surpasses the current extraterritorial provision under section 6 of the Aviation Transport Security Act, which is limited to Australia aircraft and then on board the aircraft. I am concerned that the proposed wording may provide a precedent for the Office of Transport Security to tie any regulation to both Australian and foreign airlines’ overseas operations in the air and on the ground. This matter had been raised with the opposition by the aviation industry, who are unhappy with the response that they have received from the Office of Transport Security to these concerns. As a consequence, I seek an assurance from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that any extraterritorial regulation made under these new regulations will be solely in the context of the operation of the air security officers and that this legislation will not become a precedent to impose any further domestic obligation on overseas airline operations, both in the air and on the ground. I informed the minister’s office during the briefing that he provided to my staff on Monday that I would be raising this issue. I hope therefore that in his summary in response to this debate he can provide extra advice on the intent of section 134 of the bill and assurances that this will not be used to create a whole new precedent for and a whole new method of making regulations for the aviation industry.

Pending that assurance, the opposition are happy to support the bill. We strongly support the operation of the air security officer program. The fact that the Australian aviation sector has been free of terrorist incidents is important, and undoubtedly the presence of air security officers provides a deterrent to those of ill intent who threaten danger to our aviation industry. So I support the legislation but I do seek an assurance from the minister about the way in which the regulations will particularly apply. I would also strongly urge the government to give the Australian travelling public confidence that they have no plans to wind back this program, there will not be cuts to its budget, they are not seeking to reduce the number of air security officers and this program will be maintained as an important part of Australia’s line against terrorism in aviation in this country.

See this speech in context