Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak this evening on the Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. This is an important bill because it continues Australia’s strong record of maritime and aviation security, clarifying regulatory arrangements for maritime safety at Australia’s most important access points and giving greater flexibility and certainty to industry players in their own security arrangements. The bill provides a consistent regulatory security framework for the maritime and offshore industries. As we have heard, this bill amends both the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, better known as MTOFSA, and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, ATSA, in response to a 2007 review by the Office of Transport Security, to enhance security procedures at our ports, airports and offshore facilities. The measures provided for in this bill have significant practical effect and make for a more cohesive regulatory framework. When we talk about the security of our borders, the Australian people and our infrastructure, nothing is more important. The world changed after September 11, 2001. New threats emerged which required, and will continue to require, vigilance, determination, responsiveness and foresight.

In government, the coalition responded swiftly. Following September 11 2001, the international community had to implement systems to protect the maritime transport sector and the aviation sector against the threat of terrorism. In response to the new threats, the International Maritime Organisation developed the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, providing that all security regulated ports, port facilities, offshore facilities, port and offshore service providers and ships were required to implement security plans and to undergo security risk assessments.

In Australia, the coalition government did not hesitate to meet these international best practice standards. It introduced the Maritime Transport Security Act 2003, which implemented that code. In the following year, it was amended to include offshore facilities and renamed the Maritime Transport Security and Offshore Facilities Act. Similarly, the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, ATSA, requires aviation industry participants to have approved transport security plans and implements Australia’s obligations under the convention on international aviation, the Chicago convention.

This bill before us today proposes amendments to security regulations for maritime participants, including offshore bodies, and aviation participants. It is vital for national security and safety that maritime and aviation industry participants have security plans and programs in place detailing security measures and procedures—which they already do. These measures are designed to be preventative. Following extensive risk assessments, the security plans lodged by those participants must detail safeguards against unlawful interference. The legislation operates on the premise that those in the industry are best positioned to know their own weaknesses and what security measures are required to protect their facilities, people and resources. This is done through their own risk assessments and security planning.

As I have mentioned, existing legislation requires certain industry participants to have security plans or programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Infrastructure. However, as currently drafted, there is ambiguity in both MTOFSA and ATSA as to whether industry participants may legally hold multiple approved plans at any one time. This is obviously of great practical significance in both the maritime and aviation industry given that participants may operate more than one operation at several different locations around Australia.

Amendments in schedule 1 of this bill will enable the department secretary to approve both aviation and maritime industry participants to hold multiple security programs or plans at once. Also, the amendment validates those participants who operated with multiple plans prior to the commencement of this act. This makes sense and gives legal certainty to participants. There are a number of industry participants who have a number of operations throughout this country as well as offshore. It is simply not practical or indeed possible to have one security plan applicable to several sites. For example, an offshore drilling facility will likely have facilities at another offshore location or possibly even in port. The security needs will be different at the different sites.

Regarding amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2004 specifically in relation to the maritime and offshore participants, the bill includes an amendment to change the definition of ‘Australia’ to include its external territories. As the act presently stands, it is unclear whether a foreign regulated ship visiting an external Australian territory would be obligated to comply with the requirements of the MTOFSA. There is no doubt that ships visiting Norfolk Island, Christmas Island or Cocos Island should have to comply with the same security measures and reporting information as those destined for mainland Australia.

Furthermore, this legislation will allow maritime, ship and offshore security plans to be operative for up to five years. The act presently stipulates that security plans can be approved by the department secretary for a period of five years only. The change will mean that they can be approved for up to five years as opposed to only five years. The amendment will allow security plans to last anywhere between one and five years. This means that Australia’s maritime security systems can respond appropriately to changes in our security environment within a five-year period and more readily adapt to the operational requirements of industry stakeholders. Since September 11, we are more aware that we have to have the capacity and the flexibility to respond appropriately to emerging threats and to make improvements in counterterrorism technology. This amendment provides for that flexibility.

One of the major amendments to the existing legislation creates a consistency in mapping standards. This is important for maritime and offshore participants. Currently, there is a lot of variation between the format, quality and accuracy of maps that must be submitted during the approval process of a security plan. Through the introduction of nationally consistent mapping standards, the accuracy and integrity of Australia’s maritime security plans will be vastly improved. The bill provided for regulations to be made prescribing appropriate mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries. This amendment will improve clarity and consistency in security plans across Australia and will improve the overall operation of the act.

Strong economic management meant that over recent years there was more to invest in national security and better infrastructure. In government, the coalition showed its commitment to making sure that threats to security were met before they reached the shores, quarantining Defence cuts from the budget. Following 9/11, to better secure Australia at home, the coalition invested more than $10 billion in improving security capabilities, including intelligence and the protection of vital infrastructure. No-one can disagree that maritime and aviation security is paramount. Our economy relies heavily on trade—imports and exports—and as such protection of these important assets is vital. In fact, Australia, in terms of tonnes of cargo shipped and kilometres travelled, is the world’s fifth largest shipping nation.

We must be vigilant in meeting internationally recognised standards. Every threat must be considered and planned for. The International Maritime Organisation reports that maritime security experts believe potential threats to security could come in the form of hijacking located oil tankers and grounding them in environmentally significant areas or using tankers to cause chaos at ports and large anchorage areas. With regard to aviation security, there is no question that security has improved tenfold over recent years. Airline passenger traffic is constantly rising. For example, airport passenger traffic for the year ended July 2008 was 23.4 million people, which is a 5.2 per cent increase on the year ended July 2007. We cannot afford to be haphazard in approaching national security. Procedures for access, screening, checking in and baggage handling must all be detailed in security plans.

This bill makes practical changes to existing legislation, enabling operators to better streamline existing security measures and administrative requirements. Consultation with the industry, including the Australian Shipowners Association, Shipping Australia Ltd and the Association of Australian Ports and Marine Authorities have seen full support for these legislative changes as they are conforming to existing industry practices. With a large number of security plans and programs up for renewal in July 2009, this legislation is timely.

We are obliged to make sure Australia’s transport system is as safe as possible. Since 2001 Australia’s counterterrorism framework has improved. The Office of Transport Security plays a vital role, acting as a regulator for the aviation and maritime industry. An efficient and safe transport system is the key to our country’s prosperity.

The coalition supports this bill’s amendments to existing legislation and is proud of our track record on matters of national security. I commend the bill to the House.

Chris Trevor (Flynn, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008, which amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. This bill will clarify that regulated industry participants may hold more than one approved security plan or program at the same time. This bill will also recognise the validity of all existing plans held prior to the commencement of this bill.

The Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No.1) Bill 2008 will make further amendments to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 by: allowing for maritime, ship and offshore security plans to be approved for less than the current five-year period but no less than 12 months; enable regulations to be made to prescribe mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries and standards for the presentation of information detailing offshore security zones; insert a definition of ‘Australia’ to clarify that the operation of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 extends to external Australian territories such as Norfolk Island and to ensure terms and definitions are used consistently throughout the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act.

Under the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 certain maritime industry participants are required to have approved maritime security plans. Similarly, the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 requires certain aviation industry participants to have approved transport security programs. As currently drafted in both acts it is unclear whether industry participants may hold more than one approved plan at any one time. This can be problematic given that many industry participants, especially within the maritime industry, conduct multiple operations. A stevedoring company, for example, may operate at several different ports around Australia.

Take, for another example, the port of Gladstone, in my electorate of Flynn, where I live, which is located 525 kilometres north of Brisbane. The port is just south of the Tropic of Capricorn. Gladstone port has a naturally deepwater harbour; protected waters sheltered by harbour islands; stable weather patterns; an abundance of nearby available land for industrial development; a nearby hinterland rich with natural resources, linked by an efficient transport network; abundant energy sources, including coal, natural gas and water; and is a short sailing time of 10 to 12 days to the Asia-Pacific region. The port is a convenient point for the worldwide distribution of the wealth of Central Queensland. Rail links to the rich hinterland to the west of the city provide access to the coalmining, agricultural and pastoral areas of the Callide-Dawson valleys, Central Highlands and Bowen Basin. The port also serves important regional mineral and timber resources.

The port’s facilities cater for the import of raw material and the export of finished product associated with major industries in the region. Multi-user facilities cater for the export of the region’s coal, mineral and agricultural resources. The Queensland government has earmarked the port of Gladstone as Australia’s future major industrial centre for the 21st century. The port already plays a vital role in the economy of the region, state and Australia. The port faces a bright future, with its 50-year strategic plan forecasting an ultimate port shipping capacity of more than 300 million tonnes per annum.

Gladstone Ports Corporation is unique among Australian port authorities as it not only conducts the functions of a ‘landlord’ port authority but also owns and operates cargo-handling facilities in the port. The Gladstone Ports Corporation Port of Gladstone’s operations include but are not limited to: operating bulk loading facilities at RG Tanna coal terminal and Gladstone Port Central—Auckland Point and Barney Point, operating Gladstone Marina and Auckland Inlet facilities, quarrying and land reclamation and leasing port lands. The Gladstone Ports Corporation was established to manage and operate effective and efficient port facilities and services in the port of Gladstone and Port Alma. It is a corporatised entity with shares held equally by the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Transport, Trade, Employment and Industrial Relations on behalf of the Queensland government.

The Gladstone Ports Corporation self-funds its operations and capital works programs through day-to-day activities and borrowings. The Gladstone Ports Corporation plays an integral role in planning the future of the port of Gladstone and Port Alma. In consultation with the community, industry and government, they have undertaken a strategic approach to planning, setting the vision and direction for the port of Gladstone and Port Alma in both the short and the long term.

The port of Gladstone can accommodate vessels of up to 220,000 deadweight tonnes and Port Alma shipping terminal, due to its sheltered location, can only take vessels of up to 180 metres in length. Each year more than 1,200 vessels visit the port of Gladstone, with over 50 visiting Port Alma shipping terminal. The Gladstone Ports Corporation manages and operates the port of Gladstone, including the Gladstone Marina and its recreational parklands and Port Alma shipping terminal. The port of Gladstone is Queensland’s largest multi-commodity port, housing the world’s fourth largest coal export terminal. Port Alma shipping terminal facilitates the import and export of niche market products including ammonium nitrate, explosives, general cargo, salt, frozen beef, tallow and scrap metal. Both ports are secure and sheltered. The Port Alma shipping terminal is located 62 kilometres east of Rockhampton on the southern tip of the Fitzroy River delta. The port’s storage land totals 140 hectares and is situated at nearby Bajool, approximately 20 kilometres from the shipping terminal along the Bruce Highway.

The effect of the amendments will clarify that the port may hold more than one plan at the same time, with the approval of the secretary of the department. The amendments will also provide legal certainty to the validity of all multiple existing plans held prior to the enactment of the bill. The regulatory frameworks for both the maritime and the aviation security regimes centre on the development of preventive security plans or programs. The plans and programs set out security measures and procedures to be implemented to safeguard against acts of unlawful interference with maritime and aviation transport.

It is common for industry participants to operate at more than one geographical location, especially in the maritime industry. As I said earlier, presently it is not clear whether the maritime or aviation security acts allow for industry participants to hold more than one security plan or program. To remove all doubt, the bill will clarify in the relevant maritime and aviation legislation that industry participants may hold different security plans or programs for each location or operation, with the approval of the secretary of the department. The amendments also ensure that the operation of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 in their current forms do not prevent maritime or aviation industry stakeholders from operating one or more maritime or offshore security plans or aviation transport security programs at the same time.

The measures in this bill are an example of the continued and successful cooperation between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and Australia’s maritime, offshore and aviation industry stakeholders. It is a relationship based on consultation and cooperation. The amendments provide greater clarity and certainty for industry participants. The bill increases flexibility for industry participants in their approach to implementing their security obligations and enhances current measures in both maritime and aviation security acts to deliver effective security outcomes now and into the future.

I commend this bill to the House and I congratulate the Rudd Labor government for its leadership on this issue.

Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure for me to rise in support of this legislation. The provisions of the bill itself have been fairly thoroughly outlined by my colleague the member for Flynn in the contribution that he just made. It was interesting for me to listen to some of the issues that relate to his electorate of Flynn and to see just how vital the maritime industry is for him and how well he understands it. The Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 does a couple of things. My background is in the aviation industry. Most importantly to that industry, the bill sets out to assist the industry by making the security measures and security plans flexible enough to react to the various security threats that might arise from time to time. It is in relation to the aviation industry that I want to make my contribution this evening—and I promise the House that it will be blessedly short. So, if there are others who wish to speak on the bill, it might be time for them to make their way to the House.

In particular, the issue that I wanted to canvass today relates to security screening of passengers at domestic transport terminals. In early May this year, I was contacted by the wife of a Vietnam veteran who lives in my electorate. That veteran was travelling to Canberra for the commemoration services later that month in relation to Coral and Balmoral. Her concern at the time was that her partner was quite perturbed that he would have to give up his medals to checked luggage because of the way in which the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 would deal with those medals. He was unwilling to entrust those medals to the checked luggage system, judging that the very small prospect that his luggage may go astray during the journey was too great a risk for the medals that he cherished quite dearly. The problem is that the pins on medals are, in the language of the regulation, ‘sharp things that are not weapons, but are capable, with or without modification, of causing harm by penetration’. For that reason they could be prohibited items under 1.07 of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations.

Because of the proximity of the inquiry with my office to the actual date of travel to be in Canberra, my constituent contacted the airline on my advice and arrangements were made to allow her partner to carry his medals in the cabin on that occasion. In fact, Australian domestic airlines have traditionally exercised that same sensitivity in relation to Australian veterans and ex-servicemen travelling to events on Anzac Day. However, because of the increasing number of commemorative events being conducted these days, I wrote to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs seeking his assistance to have a protocol established through which war medals, service medals or campaign medals can be carried by veterans and ex-servicemen in the passenger cabin of aircraft operating in Australia. The minister quite properly referred that request to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. With support for my request, the minister for transport responded to me. Among the other points he raised in his letter, he indicated that ultimate responsibility in this matter rests with the screening authorities at individual airports.

As a consequence of receipt of that letter, I wrote to the CEOs of airlines operating domestic services in Australia, asking them to extend their Anzac Day courtesies to all veterans’ commemorative events. I have received a reply from only one—and I am happy to name them: Qantas—who advised me that Qantas had in fact issued such a direction to their security contractors in March of this year, certainly prior to the Coral event and prior to my interest being aroused in this matter. In that letter they suggested that, for a nationally consistent approach, an amendment to the actual regulations could be considered. I have subsequently written to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government suggesting an addition to 1.07(6) of the regulation which exempts certain specific items from the more general list in item 2 of table 1.07. I also note that Qantas have forwarded our correspondence—that is, my letter to them and, I gather, their letter back to me—to the Office of Transport Security, who are currently reviewing the prohibited items list in the regulation, for their information. Minister Albanese, in his letter mentioned earlier, also referred to the comprehensive review of aviation security that is underway.

My purpose in making this brief contribution today is to call on the Office of Transport Security and the minister to make the changes necessary to allow our veterans and ex-servicemen to travel by air within Australia at all times of the year with their valuable and treasured medals in their possession, either on their person or within their cabin baggage.

I think the bill makes sensible arrangements in relation to security at both marine ports and airports. In my professional life prior to entering politics, I had a lot of experience in the aviation industry. In recent months, I had a great deal of involvement as a member of the parliamentary committee that looked into coastal shipping, which released its report just a few weeks ago. That said, I commend the bill to the House and trust that the minister and the Office of Transport Security will take on board the request that I make.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 strengthens the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 by allowing for maritime, shipping and offshore security plans to be approved for less than the current five-year period but for no less than 12 months. It enables regulations to be made to prescribed mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries. The bill also clarifies the operation of the maritime security act to external Australian territories and ensures the consistent use of terms and definitions throughout the act.

The amendments further strengthen the maritime security act, as well as the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, by clarifying that industry participants may hold more than one approved security plan or program at the same time and recognising the validity of all existing plans held prior to the commencement of the bill. The bill does not propose to vary any of the policy settings underpinning Australia’s transport security regimes. The passage of this bill will assist industry participants by providing greater clarity and certainty in the fulfilment of their security obligations. It will enhance their capacity to get on with what they do best: keeping our transport industries moving.

The government looks forward to the passage of this bill within the current sittings of parliament to enable all industry participants to focus on implementing and maintaining the security measures outlined in its security plans and programs, contributing to the strengthening of Australia’s transport security arrangements. The bill has the support of both sides of this House and the significant support of industry as a consequence of the stakeholder engagement and consultation measures that were put in place to ensure a good bill that reflects the practical needs of industry and plans that work effectively to keep safety and security pragmatically deliverable. I commend the bill to the House.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to streamline some legal terms and conditions that will enhance the effectiveness of security outcomes. The bill does not merge the security arrangements of the aviation, maritime and security sectors. Rather, the bill seeks to ensure that a similar regulatory framework is in place for each industry to enhance the overall efficiency of transport security.

Following the events of 11 September 2001, the international community recognised a need to implement systems to protect the maritime and aviation transport sectors against the threat of terrorism. As a result the International Maritime Organisation developed the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code in December 2002. Under this code, all security regulated ports, port facilities, offshore facilities, port and offshore service providers and ships are required to implement security plans and undergo security risk assessments.

In Australia, the Maritime Transport Security Act was introduced by the coalition government in 2003. It sought to implement international guidelines developed by the International Maritime Organisation. After subsequent amendments, the act was amended and renamed the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. The Aviation Transport Act 2004 establishes a regulatory framework which requires that certain aviation industry participants have approved transport security plans and implements Australia’s obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, known as the Chicago convention. In 2007, a task force was established within the Office of Transport Security, a division of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The review was designed to examine ways in which the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 could be improved to increase flexibility and clarity in maritime security planning. The outcome of the review led to a series of policy and legislative proposals. The legislative proposals are sought to be implemented in this bill.

The coalition supports the bill as drafted. The bill amends both the Aviation Transport Act and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act to clarify that the department secretary may permit both aviation and maritime industry participants to hold multiple security programs or plans at once and that, prior to the commencement date of the amendments, the operation of the ATSA and the MTOFSA did not prevent industry participants from holding multiple security programs and plans. Additionally, in relation to the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act, this bill is intended to insert a definition of ‘Australia’ into the act so that the act’s operation is extended to include our external territories, such as Norfolk Island, and to allow the department secretary to approve a maritime or offshore security plan for up to five years but no less than 12 months. The bill enables regulations to be made to stipulate mapping standards for maritime security zones and security regulated port boundaries and standards for the presentation of information detailing offshore security zones required to be produced by industry participants. The bill ensures the consistent use of definitions and terms throughout the act.

The coalition government created a single organisation body, the Border Protection Command, to coordinate the planning, surveillance, intelligence and deployments of Coastwatch and the Australian Defence Force, which adds teeth to border protection, with around 450 personnel and tougher rules of engagement. I congratulate the officers in the Border Protection Command for the work that they do and query, as I have in the past, the number of flying hours that our Customs Dash 8s are now reduced to as a result of the current government’s cuts. The coalition increased funding for Customs from $357 million in 1995-96 to $1 billion in 2007, which is an increase of 98 per cent in real terms. The coalition increased funding for the Australia Federal Police from $205 million to $976 million—an increase of 238 per cent in real terms—to tackle smuggling and substantially boost our quarantine controls, as well as the other good work that the AFP does. The coalition took practical measures to boost our intelligences agencies and law enforcement bodies that work towards improving maritime and aviation security. ASIO’s staff was boosted from 580 at the end of 2000-01 to around 1,860 by 2010-11. The coalition gave our law enforcement agencies teeth by strengthening the legislative framework for terrorist related offences. The coalition increased regional and global cooperation in law enforcement activities and legal assistance in order to boost the fight against maritime and aviation security threats, such as terrorism, piracy and transnational crime.

The criteria for issuing people a security clearance to work on Australia’s wharves must be upgraded immediately to make our ports more secure. Workers who obtain a maritime security identification card, MSIC, can have a criminal record as long as they have not been convicted of a maritime security relevant offence and have not been sentenced to imprisonment. This is not good enough. The arrangements that are currently in place are inadequate and will continue to pose a threat to Australia’s customs regime and security unless they are changed. This view has been expressed by our law enforcement agencies and other bodies who know, if I may put it like this, the character and the quality of some of those who work on our wharves today. Recent figures quoted show that approximately 10 per cent of those who are approved for MSICs have a criminal history. This is allowed because their conviction has not been for a maritime security relevant offence. Sea containers house the largest volumes of illicit drugs that come into Australia and criminals and organised crime groups rely on workers in the maritime environment to move illicit drugs from one country to another.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission heard last month that about five per cent of sea cargo that arrives in Australia is X-rayed and, of that five per cent, only one-tenth is physically inspected. I reiterate my remarks about the resources that Customs has to carry out the checks that I believe it needs to do. Background checks need to be rigorous and it is critical that the issuing body can enforce stricter criteria for denying approval of an MSIC.

I hold an aviation security identification card myself as a commercial pilot and I am familiar with the strict regulations and rules that need to be adhered to in order to obtain and keep the so-called ASIC. I would commend those who manage the process and there is nothing wrong with that process. We do all have to jump through a certain amount of hoops and so we should. With ASICs and MSICs we need to set the criteria and the bar higher so that those who have been involved in criminal activities in the past can be excluded. I am not saying every single criminal activity needs to be excluded—some, with the benefit of distance and hindsight, were perhaps not particularly relevant or serious offences in the first place.

There has to be some sense brought to the decision, but we do not have the balance where it needs to be in terms of excluding those with criminal records from holding the maritime safety identification card in particular, given the access that they have to containers and freight coming into Australia, onto our wharves, and the high level of contract labour that is employed. Customs is not able to fulfil all these activities itself. It needs to employ the services of contractors, and of course there is contract transport available. I mean to cast no aspersions on those who do their jobs very well in these contract organisations, but I think it is an area where security is lax.

In conclusion, as I have mentioned previously, our position on this bill is that we do support it. It is integral to continue to improve national maritime and aviation security and make the necessary amendments to do so. The coalition recognises that threats to our security are increasingly complex and unpredictable and that we must get on the front foot with a coordinated and uncompromising approach to protecting our maritime borders and our aviation spaces. Ultimately, it is of vital importance to Australia that our maritime and aviation security measures are amended to ensure that we are best able to respond to changes in our overall security environment. I commend the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.