Carter David: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
Carter David: Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17727] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill be now read a second time 
. I commend the Primary Production Committee and the submitters for their valuable contribution to this bill. I felt that it was important that industry be engaged on this bill and as such I wrote to affected airport companies in August encouraging their engagement. 
I will briefly reiterate why the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is needed before moving on to outline the issues raised at the select committee and the Government’s response. This bill is needed to ensure that border agencies have the necessary resources to provide aviation security biosecurity and customs services for new and restarting international airports and for requesters of non-routine processing. The main objectives of this bill are to ensure that international airports or requesters of non-routine services factor the border agency costs into their business decisions to manage the Crown’s exposure to an unpredictable fiscal liability and finally to ensure that agencies can maintain high standards of border protection without needing to reprioritise resources from other front-line operations to service new and restart international airports. 
The main issues raised at the Primary Production Committee were the types of costs that should be recovered whether the bill should cover the Aviation Security Service at all what length the cost recovery period should be whether use of a nationally average charge should be included as one of the options for cost recovery and when traveller processing is treated as non-routine. 
The first issue is the types of costs that can be recovered at new and restart airports. This bill enables border agencies to recover their establishment costs and their operating costs. Some submissions suggested that the bill should allow agencies to recover only their establishment costs and not their operating costs. The Government agrees with the committee’s recommendation that the operating costs should be recovered albeit for a limited period. Operating costs make up a large component of the agencies’ costs at these airports. Their exclusion would undermine the very policy objective of providing an incentive for airport companies to factor all of the costs for providing traveller processing into their decision making. 
The second issue is the Aviation Security Service’s coverage in the bill. Some submissions proposed removing the Aviation Security Service given that it is already funded via a nationally averaged charge on airlines. The Government supports the committee’s decision for the Aviation Security Service to remain under the bill. The nationally averaged charge does not cover the Aviation Security Service’s establishment and operating costs at new or restart airports; nor does it cover the costs associated with providing non-routine services required by airlines. The Aviation Security Service’s exclusion would expose the Crown to a fiscal risk and prevent airport companies from factoring all of the Crown’s costs into their decisions. 
The third issue is the length of the cost recovery period. I asked the committee to consider the industry’s views on my proposal that the cost recovery period be prescribed by regulation at 2 years. I am glad that the issue was submitted on and I thank the committee for accommodating my request. I note that the committee has recommended a cost recovery period of 2 years after hearing the views of submitters on this issue. A final decision on the cost recovery period will be taken later this year and will be set out in the regulations to be made after the Act is passed. 
The fourth issue relates to the differing charging methods that can be used. The bill provides that cost recovery at new and restarting international airports must be done by way of regulations and prescribes the methods that can be used. Examples of this include charges based on a scale or formula charges based on the actual and reasonable costs or fixed charges. 
Some submitters requested that the bill be amended to ensure that the method of a charge based on nationally averaged costs is available. The Government supports the committee’s recommendation that the bill enable this type of charging method as one of the cost recovery options. Ultimately the charging methods employed in any cost recovery regulations need to be appropriate for the airport and the agency concerned. I am confident that consultation with airport companies on the regulations will identify the most appropriate charging methods for all parties concerned. 
The last issue relates to clarifying what non-routine traveller processing is. The bill enables agencies to recover their actual and reasonable costs incurred in providing non-routine traveller processing at all international airports. The Government supports the amendment recommended by the committee. It clarifies the meaning of non-routine processing by linking it to those situations where agencies incur additional costs. These are the sorts of situations where staff are required to provide passenger processing in a different place or to a different standard from what is provided for the majority of travellers. I thank and I congratulate the Primary Production Committee on its diligence and the Government supports its conclusions and proposed amendments. I commend the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill to the House.