Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Watson and, following the receipt of satisfactory responses, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in Senator Watson’s name for 11 sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 222. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee’s correspondence concerning these instruments.

Leave granted.

The correspondence read as follows—

Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 222

10 November 2005

The Hon Warren Truss MP

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Suite MG.46

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the following Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations made under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004.

Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2)

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 222

The Committee has considered these Regulations and seeks your advice on the following matters.

First, the amendments in items [15] to [16] of this instrument amend regulation 6.28 in the principal Regulations. One aspect of these amendments is to remove a so-called ‘grandfathering provision’ under which only new employees have been denied an Aviation Security Identification Card on the basis of a previous adverse criminal record. The Explanatory Statement does not explain why this provision is being removed. The Committee would also appreciate your advice on whether the amended regulation 6.28 will have the effect that a person who has worked successfully may now be denied an ASIC because of an adverse criminal record that was previously not considered by reason of the grandfathering clause.

Secondly, new regulation 6.56A authorises the disclosure of personal information between CASA and the Department of Transport and Regional Services, on the one hand, and the AFP, DIMIA, and ASIO on the other. The AFP is also authorised to disclose personal information to the police force or police service of each State and Territory. The Committee would appreciate your advice on whether the Privacy Commissioner was consulted about this new regulation and, if so, whether the Commissioner raised any concerns.

Finally, section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken particularly where a proposed instrument is likely to have an effect on business. Section 18 of the Act provides that in some circumstances consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. The definition of ‘explanatory statement’ in section 4 of the Act requires an explanatory statement to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken. The Explanatory Statement that accompanies these Regulations makes no reference to consultation. The Committee therefore seeks your advice on whether consultation was undertaken and, if so, the nature of that consultation.

Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3)

Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 223

The Committee notes that the Explanatory Statement that accompanies these Regulations also makes no reference to consultation. The Committee therefore seeks your advice on whether consultation was undertaken and, if so, the nature of that consultation.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 2 December 2005, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Regulations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

1 December 2005

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 10 November 2005 regarding the amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2).

The amendments which you have raised concerns about in items [15] and [16] have been included by the Australian Government to take into account the shift in the security environment since 1998 when the Aviation Security Identification Card (ASIC) was first introduced.

Under the amended regulation 6.28, if a person already holding an ASIC is found to have an adverse criminal record under these amendments then that person would be disqualified from holding an ASIC. However, there is provision for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for decisions made by the Secretary of the Australian Government Department of Transport and Regional Services (the Department) or by an issuing body to disqualify a person from holding ASIC.

Consultations with the aviation industry have indicated that only a small number of people would be affected by this regulation change. For example, 25,000 Qantas employees were involved in a trial background check of current ASIC holders; it was found that less than five of these employees would be adversely affected by removing the grandfathering provisions.

In relation to regulation 6.56A, the amendment clarifies the purpose for which the information they have provided will be used and who will receive the information. The Privacy Commissioner was not consulted because applicants are aware of the purposes for which the information will be used and which bodies will receive the information through the application process. Applicants sign a consent form as part of the application for a security check. The consent form indicates to applicants that personal information will be forwarded to the Department, the Australian Federal Police, the Police Services of State or Territories, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The consent form details to applicants what their personal information will be used for, who will receive the information and the purpose each agency has for receiving the information. A copy of the consent form is attached for your information. [ consent form not incorporated ]

Extensive consultations with key stakeholders in both metropolitan and regional and rural Australia have been undertaken through industry forums and meetings with industry representative bodies. These amendments have been welcomed by industry, as they will remove some technical anomalies that were contained in the regulations.

In relation to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3) the amendment to regulation 2.61 allows that explosives or explosive devices may be consigned as cargo if that is an authorised consignment. The amendment corrects an omission in the original drafting and brings this regulation into line with the requirements in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and as such did not require consultation.

The amendment to regulation 4.13 clarifies that the rules on screening international transit passengers only applies to inbound flights. There has been broad discussion with the aviation industry since the legislation came into effect on 10 March 2005. Several international airlines and a representative body drew this situation to my Department’s attention and as such, no fresh consultation was undertaken at an industry level. At the time of drafting, the views of the industry were sought as to whether the amendment would be effective.

I trust this information will be of assistance to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Yours sincerely

Warren Truss

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

8 December 2005

The Hon Warren Truss MP

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Suite MG.46

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2005 responding to the Committee’s concerns with the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) and the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 3). The Committee appreciates your advice which has met most of its concerns.

The Committee would appreciate further advice on the reasons for the removal of a so-called ‘grandfathering provision’ under which only new employees have been denied an Aviation Security Identification Card on the basis of a previous adverse criminal record. In your response you explain the effect of its removal but do not address the reason why it has now been removed.

I note that the time for giving a disallowance notice in relation to these regulations expired today. The Committee has therefore today given a notice of intention to disallow the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) to enable the Committee to maintain its consideration for a further 15 sitting days, and provide you with additional time to respond.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on this matter as soon as possible but before 30 January 2006 to enable it to finalise its consideration of these regulations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

3 January 2006

Senator John Watson

Chair

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 8 December 2005 requesting further advice about the Aviation Transport Security Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 2) to enable the Committee to finalise its consideration of these regulations.

I note that the Committee has specifically requested further explanation of the reasons for the removal of the ‘grandfathering’ provisions in relation to criminal offences. As previously advised, under the amended regulation 6.28, if a person already holding an Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) is found to have an adverse criminal record under these amendments then that person would be disqualified from holding an ASIC.

This proposed amendment to the regulation reflects the desire of the Australian Government to implement objectively measurable eligibility requirements, including full and consistent criminal background checking, for all ASIC holders.

When the ASIC scheme was introduced in 1998, all applicants were subject to a police records check, but only new employees were denied an ASIC on the basis of a previous criminal record. These ‘grandfathering’ provisions, in relation to criminal offences, were carried over to the reissue of ASICs in 2002, with the addition of a politically motivated violence (security) check.

While the removal of the ‘grandfathering’ provisions enhances the preventative aviation security framework, the amendment is also designed to address the threat of serious and organised crime in airports and related cargo areas. In removing the ‘grandfathering’ provisions, the Government recognises community concerns about criminal activity in airports, and seeks to increase public confidence in security and law enforcement arrangements at Australian airports.

As advised, extensive consultation has been undertaken with the aviation industry through the Aviation Security Advisory Forum, Regional Industry Consultative Meetings, the ASIC Working Group and regional consultative and industry forums. These consultations have indicated that the proposed amendment is supported by industry and would have minimal impact. There is provision to appeal any decisions made by the Secretary of the Australian Government Department of Transport and Regional Services or by an issuing body to disqualify a person from holding an ASIC to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

I trust this information will be of assistance to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Yours sincerely

Warren Truss

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

On behalf of Senator Watson and, following the receipt of satisfactory responses, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in Senator Watson’s name for 11 sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Civil Aviation (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 224. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee’s correspondence concerning these instruments.

Leave granted.

The correspondence read as follows—

Civil Aviation (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 224

10 November 2005

The Hon Warren Truss MP

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Suite MG.46

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Civil Aviation (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1), Select Legislative Instrument 2005 No. 224.

This instrument specifies fees payable to CASA for aviation security status checking (subregulation 5(2)) and for the issuing of an Aviation Security Identification Card, or ASIC (subregulation 5(4)). The Committee notes that the Explanatory Statement states that the fees in subregulation 5(4) are the same as those in subregulation 5(2). However, item 4 of the table in subregulation 5(2) states that the fee for replacement of a security designated authorisation is $50, while item 4 in subregulation 5(4) states that the fee for the replacement of an ASIC is $75. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice on the reasons for this difference.

Also, section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken particularly where a proposed instrument is likely to have an effect on business. Section 18 of the Act provides that in some circumstances consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. The definition of ‘explanatory statement’ in section 4 of the Act requires an explanatory statement to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken. The Explanatory Statement that accompanies these Regulations makes no reference to consultation. The Committee therefore seeks your advice on whether consultation was undertaken and, if so, the nature of that consultation.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 2 December 2005, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Regulations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

1 December 2005

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 6200

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 10 November 2005 regarding the amendments to the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations 2005 (No. 1).

I note the Committee’s concerns about different levels of fees payable to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for aviation security status checking (subregulation 5(2)) and for the issuing of an Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) (subregulation 5(4)). The difference in fees is due to the different costs in processing these applications. For example, costs are different for replacement of a security designated authorisation and a replacement ASIC.

Extensive consultations with key stakeholders in both metropolitan and regional and rural Australia have been undertaken through industry forums and meetings with industry representative bodies.

I trust this information will be of assistance to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Yours sincerely

Warren Truss

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

8 December 2005

The Hon Warren Truss MP

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

Suite MG.46

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 1 December 2005 explaining the reason for the different level of fees payable to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority as prescribed in the Civil Aviation (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2005 (No. 1). This advice has answered the Committee’s concern.

In your response you also advised that extensive consultations were undertaken with ‘key stakeholders in both metropolitan and rural Australia’. This advice raises two questions. First, the definition of ‘explanatory statement’ in section 4 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 requires an explanatory statement to describe the nature of any consultation that was carried out. The nature of the consultation process in this instance is not clear. Secondly, it is not clear who is included in the term ‘key stakeholders’.

I note that the time for giving a disallowance notice in relation to these regulations expired today. The Committee has therefore today given a notice of intention to disallow these regulations to enable the Committee to maintain its consideration for a further 15 sitting days, and provide you with additional time to respond. The Committee would appreciate your advice on this matter as soon as possible but before 30 January 2006 to enable it to finalise its consideration of these regulations. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

22 December 2005

Senator John Watson

Chair

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 8 December 2005 requesting further advice about the Civil Aviation (Fees) Regulations 2005 (No. 1) to enable the Committee to finalise its consideration of these regulations.

I note that the Committee has asked for further information about consultations described in previous correspondence, specifically requesting details of key stakeholders included in the consultation process.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken through regular industry meetings with key stakeholders including the Australian Airports Association, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, Recreational Aviation Australia, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia, the Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) Working Group and Regional Industry Consultative Meetings.

While initial concerns were raised regarding the fees for pilots to undergo background checking, there is broad recognition that background checking is now a requirement across the aviation industry. The fees to be applied by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) are competitive with fees charged by other ASIC issuing authorities on a cost-recovery basis.

Additionally, as CASA is now an issuing body for ASICs, the different background checking requirements for pilots to obtain a photo licence and an ASIC have been addressed to remove duplication and to ensure the impact on pilots is minimised.

I trust this information will be of assistance to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Yours sincerely

Warren Truss

Minister for Transport and Regional Services

On behalf of Senator Watson and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move:

That Instrument No. CASA 383/05 made under regulation 179A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 be disallowed.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.

Leave granted.

The summary read as follows—

Instrument No. CASA 383/05

This Instrument specifies instructions for the navigation of an aircraft under the Instrument Flight Rules. Clause 8 in Schedule 1 to this Instrument makes reference to “a long flight over water”. There is no reference in clause 8 to any definition of what constitutes a “long flight”. The Committee has written to the Minister seeking advice on this matter.