Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to further strengthen and clarify a range of aviation safety and security provisions. In particular, the bill amends the Civil Aviation Act 1988 in two primary ways: firstly, so that a person who is outside an aircraft can commit the offence of interfering with aircrew or endangering an aircraft or passengers. I note that this provision addresses recent concerns in the community—most recently reported today, in fact—about the pointing of lasers at aircraft approaching or taking off from major airports. Secondly, the bill adds a new part to create the statutory framework to provide for drug and alcohol testing and management.

There are also four major changes to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004: firstly, to more closely align aviation security legislation with maritime security legislation and make the transport security process more flexible; secondly, to provide for the making of regulations to prohibit activities outside airports that could adversely affect airport or aircraft operations in line with the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s requirements; thirdly, to provide broader and more effective coverage of potential acts of unlawful interference with aviation, including further powers for Australian Customs officers at airports, in line with the recommendations of the 2005 Wheeler report, An independent review of airport security and policing for the government of Australia; and, finally, to provide for the making of regulations that would specifically describe those senior dignitaries and their families who are exempt from aviation security screening.

I am pleased to have been involved in the review of the bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. While the committee recommends that the bill be passed, the committee raised a number of concerns, which I share. I foreshadow that I will move the second reading amendment tabled here today, to address those concerns. I understand that a second reading amendment has been circulated. I am concerned about the creation of an exemption mechanism for senior dignitaries, rather than use of the case-by-case mechanism already existing for security screening. Several industry participants also expressed concern about these provisions, including Virgin Blue Airlines, the Australian Airports Association and Adelaide Airport, who were opposed to any exemption.

Virgin Blue argued that ‘the approach adopted by the government introduces security vulnerabilities and risks to the security framework’ and therefore to the travelling public. Clearly, if a person who is exempt from screening and clearance under legislation can enter a sterile area or board an aircraft whilst in possession of a weapon or prohibited item, either intentionally or inadvertently, then this poses a risk to security.

I think it is fair to say that the committee reluctantly accepted the advice of Department of Transport and Regional Services officials—who themselves were acting on the advice of DFAT and the Attorney-General’s Department—that the amendments are necessary to meet Australia’s international legal obligations in relation to the processing of visiting dignitaries. They pointed out that the changes will not involve a large number of people, will meet Australia’s international legal obligations and will actually only create a power to grant an exemption.

As stated in the second reading amendment, which is being tabled at the moment, I call, on behalf of the opposition, on the government to consult further with the aviation industry and unions and to take into account their advice before exercising the power to exempt any senior dignitaries from security screening. Such exemptions should only be granted to meet the international legal obligations referred to by Department of Transport and Regional Services officials in their evidence to the Senate committee.

My second concern relates to the introduction of drug and alcohol management and testing programs. These measures are required to deliver better safety outcomes to Australian civil aviation and to maintain Australia’s international standing as a leader in aviation safety. According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau pilot safety survey on the use of drugs and alcohol, more than 20 per cent of pilots who responded indicated that they felt that, at some point in the previous year, safety had been compromised in some way by alcohol, drugs or prescribed medication. The Hamilton Island air crash in 2002, in which six people lost their lives, is believed to be at least partly attributable to alcohol and drugs. So, whilst I am broadly supportive of the introduction of drug and alcohol management and testing, I am concerned about the exclusion of certain stakeholders from the consultation process and about the development of the detail.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has so far shown some willingness to consult further on the implementation details but has not been willing to include the Australian and International Pilots Association as a formal member of the drug and alcohol project team, despite the constructive contributions that that organisation has made to the process. The Australian and International Pilots Association, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, and the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, who cover airport security, have all raised issues about the implementation of the drug and alcohol management and testing regime but are broadly supportive of the approach. In particular, the AIPA and the LHMU stressed the need for an approach based on harm minimisation, education and rehabilitation, rather than on punitive measures. In my second reading amendment, I call on the government to consult further with the aviation industry and unions and to take into account their advice regarding the practical implementation of the proposed drug and alcohol management and testing regime.

The third issue relates to the proposals concerning Customs officers in the implementation of recommendation VI of the Wheeler report of 2005, which recommends:

• all police, AFPPS and Customs officers deployed to an airport be given clear and unambiguous powers, including to stop, search, detain and arrest where necessary within the airport and adjacent roads and parking areas

Given that Customs officers will now be undertaking police-like activities, I think it is important that the powers of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity also be expanded so that it can oversee these activities. Accordingly, the second reading amendment calls on the government to do just that.

Let me also say that the government could have exercised more haste in acting on the recommendations of the Wheeler report, and I note that there is also more to be done. Broadly speaking, I support the measures proposed in the bill, and we will be voting in support of the legislation. I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

                 “but the Senate condemns the Government for creating an exemption mechanism for senior dignitaries rather than using the case-by-case mechanism for security screening and calls on the Government to:

             (a)    consult further with the aviation industry and unions and take into account their advice before exercising the power to exempt any senior dignitaries from security screening;

             (b)    consult further with the aviation industry and unions and take into account their advice regarding the practical implementation of the proposed drug and alcohol management and testing regime;

             (c)    consult fully with stakeholders in the drafting of all relevant regulations subsequent to the passage of the bill; and

             (d)    expand the powers of Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, so that it can oversee the police-like activities undertaken by Customs”.