Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (1:01 PM) —I move opposition amendment (2):

(d) information about a person in custody who is to be on a prescribed aircraft must be provided to the pilot in command of the aircraft no later than 24 hours before the time at which the flight is due to commence unless the pilot agrees to a lesser timeframe;

I thank the government for its support of amendment (1) regarding Airservices Australia. The second amendment will require the provision of information about the carriage of passengers in custody to the pilot at least 24 hours before the departure of a flight. We on the opposition benches believe that this issue is very, very significant. It is an issue of major concern to airlines in terms of potential threats to the safe travelling of the Australian public. This amendment is necessary to avoid what I believe is a glaring security issue in the aviation industry. In their submissions to the Senate review of the draft regulations last week, Qantas said the following:

This sentiment appropriately echoes that of the Board of Airline Representatives in earlier hearings. The Board of Airline Representatives is exceptionally important in terms of its endeavour to get the terrorism security framework, in terms of its application as a result of government action, right. I therefore believe it is exceptionally important that we have regard to the view of the Board of Airline Representatives and the sentiments clearly expressed in the Qantas submission.

Evidence was given to another committee in September by the Executive Coordinator of the Border Control and Compliance Division of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. We were advised by DIMIA in that consultation that they remove about 14,000 people per year. Qantas alone, we were advised, uplifted 3,092 passengers in custody in the year 2002. It is interesting to note that, of that number, an exceedingly high proportion—1,906—required security escorts. It is also important to indicate Qantas's clarification that the airline accepts that not all persons in custody pose a risk. They are actually trying to do the right thing in terms of this issue.

The critical issue for airlines is that DIMIA and other agencies tell airlines who they are putting on their aircraft. I think this is a fair request from the airlines. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the moment. I am astounded that this issue has not been pursued previously by the government. I only hope that somehow as a result of the final consideration of this bill, if not today, in the other house, that the government—from what I hear, having not been convinced to date of the necessity of this requirement—seriously reviews its position. I am in regular consultation with the airlines and their peak council, and this is an issue that they have raised with me on a regular basis over an extended period. It is obviously a substantive issue from their mind about potential security and terrorist threats in terms of the operation of the airline industry. In that context, in evidence to the Joint Public Accounts and Audit Committee in October, the Board of Airline Representatives made the following comments:

With all respect, it is astounding in the light of September 11 and all the subsequent events that we have not reviewed this very serious issue and done something about it at a government level. They went on to state:

Qantas reminded us appropriately of this comment in their submission on the regulations for the bill before this House. (Extension of time granted)They then advised that their own airline is aware of similar instances. They also expressed concern that, under the guise of privacy, such information is not being provided. For example, when asked why a passenger is a person in custody, the response is often that they have committed an offence.

Labor commends the airline industry's service in transporting passengers in custody. They try to do the right thing by the Australian community. Obviously this is also, appropriately, part of their business, but it must always be remembered that these airlines are not government owned or controlled. They are trying to provide a service—yes, a commercial service—but in doing so they are potentially placing themselves and fellow passengers at risk. It places huge pressure on the staff of the airline, the passengers and the overall operation of the aircraft. Therefore, I fully support the right of airlines like Qantas and Virgin Blue to refuse carriage to any person if they believe there is an unacceptable risk.

Airlines such as Qantas and Virgin Blue are careful about this. They do not want to hinder the operation of custody services from a government point of view, but they appropriately go out of their way to try to maintain their business in the safest possible way. But to assess that risk—to secure in their own minds their belief that they are doing the right thing by the public at large and especially by passengers and the families of passengers on those airlines—is a simple request to which any thoughtful government ought to give not just consideration but also support. They are requesting that they have the information available in time to make that assessment.

In this regard, we are sympathetic to the fact that the department is correctly trying to work through these issues. However, DIMIA seem to be of the view that the transport of passengers in custody is of no risk to airlines and that information about the individuals is not permitted to be given to the airline. I simply say to DIMIA today: if this issue is not attended to because of your stubbornness and irresponsibility then, frankly, if something goes wrong, it will rest at the feet of the minister for not acting and at the feet of the department head for not considering this issue appropriately, thoroughly, in the best interests of the travelling public and, dare I suggest, in the best interests of the nation.

There are many other issues associated with this important bill that can be covered in regulations, such as the type of information that should be provided to the airline. I do not intend to go into that detail. It is my job to identify the problem and request that the government, with the assistance of their experienced departmental officers, do the groundwork. I am calling on them to accept the request in principle, do the necessary work and then come back with regulations and understandings about what has to be done.

Anyone listening to this debate would accept the argument that it is about safety. It is a tough industry which is exposed more than ever to threats to security, threats of terrorism and difficulties in how potential passengers might conduct themselves. We hear from time to time the problems airline staff confront in terms of air rage. This is potentially more explosive. This is about people in custody who have committed a crime or are being processed through the courts, having been charged with a crime. The critical issue is that the airline gets notice. In their submission to the hearing last week, Qantas said that all they merely seek is:

I will remind the House of the critical issue that Qantas raised in that statement. It is called `duty of care'. (Extension of time granted)In this day and age of frequent litigation, we often hear about the issue of duty of care. It is an issue that is appropriately highlighted in the submission carefully prepared by Qantas, who, in their own way, pointed succinctly to the challenge that they confront, as do Virgin Blue, in their day-to-day operations. I say to the government that that duty of care is something that airlines now take responsibility for, because companies such as Qantas and Virgin Blue understand their responsibilities.

We are now saying to the airline industry in Australia: `In terms of your regulation on the security front, we are establishing a framework in terms of an act and all the associated regulations to the meat of the act that you are required to adhere to.' If the companies come back to us, having entered into a cooperative process of consultation, and say that there is one potential fundamental flaw which goes to the fundamental operation of the act—in essence, an outstanding issue going to duty of care—then the government has to have regard to that suggestion. Duty of care is now the responsibility of government because, as stated in this act and in the associated regulations, they are setting the standards for the industry to operate on for the future.

The whole act is premised on duty of care in terms of the operation of the industry. If duty of care is the fundamental approach, then it is the government's responsibility to have regard to the flaw in this act. I will acknowledge the general support and feedback we have received from the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Perhaps DIMIA, the department of immigration—which, we all know, is pretty tough on border protection issues of security—should have some regard for the knock-on effects of persons in custody and the potential impact a lack of proper security can have on the operation of the airline industry.

I urge the minister to support Labor's amendment to ensure that we have a better system for transporting passengers in custody and a system that respects not only the passengers in custody but also the rights of those travelling with them. It is a reasonable request, especially when you consider not only the environment in which Australian airlines operate but also the international environment in which we unfortunately find ourselves at the moment. In the detail of the amendment, Labor are mindful of the need for flexibility, but where the pilot agrees. As such, Labor's amendment specifies a minimum of 24 hours notice but permits a shorter time frame if the pilot agrees. I commend the amendment to the House and call on the government, if it cannot agree today, to actually fix this. It is a substantial amendment. In terms of drafting it, following consultation with industry, Labor were also trying to build in sufficient flexibility to assist the government when, at shorter notice, airlines act with respect to the issue of moving passengers in custody. I commend the amendment to the House.