Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. This bill contains amendments which aim to strengthen the aviation security legislative framework. In particular, the amendments would improve the Office of Transport Security’s ability to perform its duties as regulators of aviation security to ensure compliance with the act and regulations in order to safeguard against unlawful interference with aviation.

The bill contains four key amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 which would: firstly, enable regulation to be made to designate security controlled airports a particular category of airport, according to their risk profiles; secondly, allow unannounced inspections of businesses involved in air cargo; thirdly, allow the secretary of the department to enter into enforceable undertakings with aviation industry participants as a remedial measure; and, finally, expand the scope of ‘compliance control directions’ to cover operators of security controlled airports and screening authorities.

I will look at the amendments in a bit more detail, starting with the categorisation of security controlled airports. Currently, a subsection of the act provides that the secretary of the department may declare an airport to be a security controlled airport. Such a declaration allows, amongst other things, the secretary to then establish airside and landside security zones. There may be different types of such security zones prescribed by regulation but, as their name implies, these zones are intended to provide appropriate levels of security by controlling movements of persons, vehicles and goods et cetera.

Furthermore, the act requires the operator of a security controlled airport to have a transport security program. The declaration of an airport as a security controlled airport places the same legislative requirement on all such airports, regardless of their size, location and type of aircraft operating from the airport. Regulatory activity could be better targeted if airports were categorised in accordance with their relative risk to security.

Therefore, it is proposed that the secretary of the department be able to designate, by notice, a security controlled airport as a particular category of airport. The assignment of a particular category to an individual airport will be done in the same way as airports are now declared to be security controlled airports—that is, by publishing a notice in the gazette and giving a notice to the airport operator. A decision by the secretary made under this amendment would be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

It is also proposed that the regulation-making power under the Aviation Transport Security Act be amended so as to allow regulations to be made to designate security controlled airports as a particular category of security controlled airport. This will enable regulations to prescribe different legislative requirements for each category of security controlled airport to reflect the relative risk associated with each category of airport. Section 79 of the act details powers of aviation security inspectors, including powers to enter and inspect any area, building—other than a residence—or vehicle under the control of an accredited air cargo agent or aviation industry participant. Aviation security inspectors are employees of the administering department or state or Federal Police officers or Protective Service officers under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Such inspectors have wide-ranging entry and inspection powers under existing section 79, which can be exercised for determining whether a person is complying with the act and/or investigating a possible contravention of that act.

Amongst the inspection powers are those to enter and inspect any area, building or vehicle under the control of an accredited air cargo agent or aviation industry participant. However, where the proposed entry and inspection is in a place that is not within the boundaries of a security controlled airport, reasonable notice must be given before exercising the power. Currently, these powers cannot be exercised outside of the boundaries of a security controlled airport without providing reasonable notice. The requirement to provide reasonable notice reduces the effectiveness of inspection activity as businesses can briefly alter their practices for the period of the inspection.

There are good reasons why this amendment is being made. Firstly, most businesses involved in air cargo supply chains are located outside of the boundaries of a security controlled airport, requiring reasonable notice of an inspection; and, secondly, the obligation placed on many regulated business, particularly accredited air cargo agents, are procedural in nature, allowing easy short-term amendments to practices during an inspection. This makes regular procedural non-compliance difficult to identify. In order to address this issue it is proposed that the act be amended to allow aviation security inspectors to exercise the following powers at any time and without notice: firstly, enter any area, building—other than a residence—or vehicle under the control of an aviation industry participant or an accredited air cargo agent and inspect equipment, documents and/or records. This includes photographing or copying documents and/or records and operating equipment to gain access to documents and/or records; and, secondly, observe operating procedures and discuss those procedures with employees of an accredited air cargo agent or aviation industry participant or an accredited air cargo agent itself or aviation industry participant itself.

On the amendments covering enforceable undertakings, currently the regulatory powers under the act of the Office of Transport Security in relation to aviation industry participants are generally concentrated at the higher end of the hierarchy. For example, should an aviation industry participant breach their obligations under a transport security program, they face the possible sanction of the cancellation of their transport security program, thus preventing them to continue to operate. The act fails to provide a set of middle-range sanctions to address regulatory issues and contraventions of the act, particularly in instances where the breaches are not serious enough to warrant the imposition of a criminal penalty or preventing an aviation industry participant to continue to operate. Introducing enforceable undertakings as a middle-range administrative enforcement tool under the Aviation Transport Security Act will enable a more responsive regulatory approach, generate more confidence on the part of both the travelling public and the industry and encourage better industry compliance.

It is envisaged that this would also enable the Office of Transport Security to deal more effectively, flexibly and in a more timely fashion with compliance issues under the act and provide greater ability to set compliance strategies, negotiate outcomes and accept voluntary solutions. For example, an enforceable undertaking would involve a commitment to future security standards by industry, including steps that are to be taken by an aviation industry participant to ensure that specific types of incidents does not occur again.

The proposed amendment would allow the secretary of the department to enter into enforceable undertakings with aviation industry participants, which may be made in relation to all matters that are dealt with under the act. An aviation industry participant may withdraw or vary the undertaking at any time with the written consent of the secretary. In addition, the secretary may, by written notice given to the participant, cancel the undertaking.

Finally, should an aviation industry participant breach an enforceable undertaking, the secretary may apply to the Federal Court for an order which may include the following: an order directing compliance with the undertaking; an order directing a payment of an amount of financial benefit that the participant has received, whether directly or indirectly, as a result of the breach; an order directing the participant to compensate another person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the breach; or an order that the court considers appropriate.

Finally, in the amendments, we come to the expansion of compliance control directions. The Aviation Transport Security Act currently permits aviation security inspectors to direct the pilot or operator of an aircraft that is in Australia, but not in flight, to take a specific action in relation to the aircraft. Such a direction by an inspector is a compliance control direction. An inspector is only allowed to issue a compliance control direction if it is necessary to ensure compliance with the act. However, there is no currently no scope for aviation security inspectors to issue compliance directions to airport operators or screening authorities. Therefore, the amendment would expand the operation of section 74B of the act in order to allow an aviation security inspector to direct operators of security controlled airports, screening authorities or screening officers to take specific action in relation to the airport or screening points at the airport: for example, an airport operator or screening authority may be directed to screen or rescreen certain passengers and baggage.

It is clear in these times of increased security risks around the world that we need to make our airports the safest possible places to travel through, work at and do business with. All of us have become used to going through increased and enhanced security checks when we fly. Those countless times when we have had to take off our shoes, boots or belts, dislodge the laptop computer from our carry bag or be subject to a random personal scan at the airport are all part of the modern security regime and are all for the good of the community in general. We have learned not to take these things personally. We understand that it is for the security of this country. While these sometimes tedious encounters at the security points might seem a hassle, it is much better to feel safer in the knowledge that screening is widespread at our airports and includes everyone.

The amendments outlined in this bill are only modest changes to the Commonwealth’s aviation transport security regime; nevertheless, they are important. Indeed, the act has been regularly amended since 2004 to incorporate various changes to the regime. While a principal aim of airport security is to prevent ‘unlawful interference’ with aircraft that could lead to fatalities among passengers and crew, major airports themselves are critical infrastructure for the ongoing health of the economy and for our people’s lives and livelihoods and are potential targets for serious crime and terrorism. A substantial amount of both exports and imports pass through our airports, and annual passenger arrivals and departures total some 100 million, with about one-fifth of that figure being international passengers. Airports also provide direct employment for about 150,000 Australians.

Unfortunately, the flow of wealth and people through these concentrated nodes that we call airports can also be the target for criminals and terrorists. We can never afford to have lax security or even petty criminality at our airports, because this can provide opportunities for terrorists to exploit weaknesses in airport security. We must always bear in mind the fact that staff, however much they are checked and screened at the outset, can be bribed to ignore criminality or be paid large sums to assist in drug trafficking or theft. This type of seemingly petty criminality can always lead to worse things. Once compromised, such employees may be unable to stand up to terrorists. Of course, terrorists also need money to conduct their operations. For funding, they regularly engage in theft, drug trafficking and fraud. A classic example of this was in 2004, when the Provisional IRA stole ₤24 million from a then Australian owned bank in Belfast.

The Australian government, state and territory governments and the private sector have made many positive security changes and have dedicated significant resources to combating terrorism, especially since the attacks in the United States on September 11 2001. But there is still work to be done. As the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit reported so eloquently just three years ago:

The primary objective of aviation security is the protection of life and property. However, perhaps the greatest current threat to aviation security, terrorism (as opposed to hijacking or other activity), does not confine its target to life and property. Terrorism is an attempt to terrorise, to destroy a public’s sense of security and confidence.

The report went on to say:

An important consideration in implementing an aviation security regime, therefore, is not only the effectiveness of security outcomes but public confidence that the regime is effective.

This bill and the amendments contained in it will go quite a way towards not only improving our systems of security at Australian airports but also helping public confidence, and therefore I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context