[Peetwo]

Perhaps opportunity knocks?? - GOOD CATCH HITCH!! - 

From this week's LMH:

"...The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is in the throes of reviewing the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia’s Transport Sector) Bill 2024. This is a bill that is still before parliament, but the review is all about making sure the security regulations are appropriate and updated. And, that they are risk-based. That caught my eye when I read that: risk-based. One of those security regulations is the demand for Aviation Security Identification Cards (ASIC) for general aviation aircrew when using airports that have regular public transport. If the regulations are genuinely risk-based, then it follows that the Federal Government believes that general aviation pilots are a risk to aviation security, and furthermore, that they have to be background checked every two years or aviation security is at risk. Really, it doesn't take long for that logic to whither and die under the searing rays of scrutiny. If general aviation pilots were a risk to aviation security then the government would be plagued with incidents and it would be all over the news. It's not. You see, the ASIC doesn't stop qualified pilots from carrying out any form of terrorism; it's the pilots themselves that do that. And the fact that nothing is happening is proof positive that ASICs are not needed, just as they aren't required in just about every other country in the world. The parliamentary committee is taking submissions right now. Perhaps we need to open our mouths..."

This is the description and TOR for this Joint Parliamentary inquiry:

Review of the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia's Transport Sector) Bill 2024

The Minister for Home Affairs, Hon Tony Burke MP, wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) on 13 January 2025 to refer the Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia’s Transport Sector) Bill 2024 for inquiry and report.

The Bill is part of the implementation of a reform agenda in response to the Independent Review into Australia’s Aviation and Maritime Transport Security Settings.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to update and strengthen the [i]Aviation Transport Security Act 2004[/i] (ATSA) and the [i]Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003[/i] (MTOFSA).

Key elements of the Bill include amendments to either or both Acts to:

• amend the definition of ‘unlawful interference’ to capture a broader variety of acts, including cyber security incidents, and attempts as well as successful acts
  
• impose reporting requirements for cyber security incidents
  
• provide for the introduction of ‘all-hazards’ security obligations into both legislative schemes, by authorising regulations to be made relating to security programs and plans, minimum security standards that must be met, security assessments and annual reporting
  
• introduce system testing requirements for maritime security controls, and ‘vulnerability testing’ in both the aviation and maritime sectors
  
• update provisions relating to ‘test weapons’ to allow the Department to use new test weapons reflecting current and emerging threats
  
• broaden and align provisions across both Acts for the issuance of security directions by the Department of Home Affairs
  
• enable the establishment of a non-compliance ‘demerit points scheme’ for the aviation sector
  
• amend definitions of ‘port’ and ‘security regulated port’ to ensure that security regulation includes infrastructure, operations, assets and anchorages as part of port facilities.
  

The Bill includes other technical and administrative updates to the ATSA and MTOFSA.

The Committee invites submissions to the inquiry by 13 February 2025.

Further information about making a submission to a parliamentary committee is available here.


Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
PO Box 6021
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 2360
pjcis@aph.gov.au

Plus from the Transport Security review:

In the final report, the review made 26 recommendations and 66 sub-recommendations across five key themes:

• Update legislative and policy frameworks to enable iterative, risk-based and scalable regulation.
  
• Increase integration of intelligence and data analysis for the CISC as the regulatory body.
  
• Improve partnerships between the CISC and industry through better communication and engagement.
  
• Re-design of compliance processes and enforcement strategies.
  
• Raise, train and sustain appropriate transport security capability for both the CISC and industry.
  

LMH makes a good point in favour of scrapping the ridiculous ASIC card requirement for GA pilots but is there anyone left out there that is willing to take on the time and political advocacy effort to bring this to the attention of the numpty Senators and MPs?? - 

Sandy's submission - 

Dear Committee Secretary,

In regard to the Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC) and the requirement for General Aviation (GA) pilots to maintain this expensive imposition.

I would ask the Committee to enquire from Home Affairs;  since inception of the ASIC has it delivered any safety benefits by virtue of preventing any unlawful acts around any of the many airports where it is required? And is it thought that it would be difficult for a criminal with no ASIC to obtain access to most airports?

The validity of this card is only two years, and for each renewal the pilot has to provide birth certificate and all details to prove one’s identity and visit a designated Post Office, or authorised place for photo and personal identification. The ASIC cost is about $300, plus time and travel for each renewal, a particularly onerous task for the many GA pilots who live in the bush.

The ASIC, brought about by 9/11 to counter what is I think proven to be a non existent problem, is thought to be, by virtually the whole of the GA community, an overreach and a painful waste of time and money.

In reality the ASIC requirement is:-

1/.  Against the safety of operations around airports because it deters pilots without the ASIC from visiting those ‘security controlled airports.’ There are hundreds of these airports which serve small towns like Winton QLD.

There are plenty of pilots whose ASIC has run out or don’t have a current ASIC for whatever reason, including a reluctance to spend money for no practical purpose.

2/. Against safety because more GA pilots being on those airports will have experienced eyes to assess untoward behaviour in the extremely unlikely, and remote possibility, of such activity. 

3/. Against safety and the well being of our GA industry because those without the ASIC may put off taking their aircraft to airports for maintenance due to their lack of an ASIC. Most maintenance bases are at ‘security controlled’ airports. This also means loss of business to those towns. 

I ask the Committee to revisit the Government’s own 2014 Forsyth Report and recommendation to delete the ASIC for GA pilots, and please also refer to the Wheeler report as it bears on this question.

Wheeler noted that the ASIC security investigation is only current at the time of issue, there being little or no interdepartmental follow up of incidents that might inspire security concerns about ASIC holders. Wheeler also noted that it’s a crime if an ASIC holder does not advise the authorities if one has committed, or been prosecuted for a crime and doesn’t report same promptly. An ASIC holder bent on nefarious purpose is hardly likely to obey this stricture in my opinion.

As to the practicality and real life experience of flying around Australia, a very experienced commercial charter pilot and pilot instructor (now retired, was Chief Pilot and Chief Flying Instructor at a busy city airport) confided to me that the original ASIC card was obtained and served this person for the next some eighteen years. This demonstrates, and from personal experience, that the actual level of practical field surveillance of the ASIC in detail is extremely low.

Please inform me of the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations, I’m hopeful of a commonsense outcome because GA is an important industry that has been hampered by regulation churning and other unnecessary and expensive requirements from CASA resulting in loss of flying schools and maintenance jobs and businesses.

Thanking you for your invitation to make a submission. I am available at short notice by phone if Senators wish me to elaborate.

Kind regards,  Sandy Reith

MTF...P2