Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

Another day in question time, another mistake from the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Yesterday, in answer to questions, he was telling us that the reason the Commonwealth cannot legislate to provide a basis for the Commonwealth Inspector of Transport Security was somehow the states’ fault. Of course, the reality is far from that. The government have dragged the chain—in fact, no draft legislation has been provided to any of the states. It is little wonder that there has been no response from the states—they have not been given a firm proposal by the Commonwealth.

Today we saw it again. Today, in answer to a question in relation to the open door policy at Sydney airport in recent times, the minister claimed that there was no problem at all, that this is all part of the grand plan of security at our largest airport—that you leave a security gate open. I draw the minister’s attention to the actual article. He was very quick to assert that the Daily Telegraph were lying about this. I suggest he have a look at the photograph in the article. What he will discover, in looking at the photograph in the article, is that the gate displayed, completely open and without any security guard, has on it the large Air Services poster: ‘Restricted area’. That ‘Restricted area’ poster includes the normal information that you would see in all restricted areas in all airports around Australia. It makes it clear that you can only access the area if you are:

... persons holding and displaying a valid identification card for this area and a lawful excuse for entry.

That is what the sign on the gate that was left open says. Today, the minister would have us believe that leaving that gate open is somehow part of his grand plan to protect Australia’s travelling public and the aviation industry.

That fits with a few other things the minister has had to say. We found out today that our regional airports are secure, not because there are police and Protective Services personnel available to look after them—there are not—but because there are four teams in Australia to look after about 140 airports. You do not have to be too good at either geography or maths to understand how poor that coverage is. No, we don’t need any of that: the minister assured us today that what we have are ‘plans’. We have security plans. You can just see the boffins, the bureaucrats, writing out their security plans, and the impact that would have on a potential terrorist. The terrorist would be sitting down thinking, ‘We’d better not attack that airport—they’ve got a plan! They don’t have any security guards; they don’t have any security gates—but they’ve got a plan.’ You can see someone walking into a bank to conduct a hold-up and telling everybody: ‘Stick ’em up, I’ve got a plan!’ It is an absurd proposition that the minister advanced today that our aviation industry and our regional airports are secure—even though this government have mismanaged that for some years, they are secure because they have written a plan. The facts are that, when it comes to matters of border security and airport security, the Howard government are all hot air and no substance. They are long on talk and they are short on practical measures.

Howard government ministers think that national security and border protection are the names of some photo studio. They never miss a photo opportunity. If there is someone there in uniform, if there is a flag to drape themselves in, they will be there like a shot; but get them to focus on the necessary practical measures that are required to provide security for the Australian travelling public and they are nowhere to be seen—we get the glib, shallow comments that we have seen from the minister this week in parliament. Australia does not protect its borders by pretending they do not exist, like the Howard government wants us to; and we certainly do not protect our airports by just talking about them in the way this government does.

The government has had five years since the terrorist attacks in America on September 11 to get these things right. Instead, dangerous security lapses are becoming common. Barely a week goes by now where there is not a serious breach of security in one of Australia’s airports. Barely a week goes by without another example of this government’s incompetent management of aviation security, at a time when aviation security is front and centre, part of the proper management of the nation in the face of a terrorist threat.

Yesterday’s incident, which I have referred to, saw literally a procession of vehicles going in and out—no guard, no boom gate, no security—of an area clearly identified as a security area for which people required passes. That was not the only incident at Australia’s largest airport. Remember, this is our premier airport. This is the largest, busiest airport in the nation. You might think that, if security were correct in one place in Australia, it would be at the busiest airport in the nation. But just three weeks ago there was another incident at Sydney airport, when two vehicles tailgated a van through a security gate. That gate was set up to allow one car to pass with a security pass. Two other vehicles followed them through. On that occasion, we were lucky—it was an act of road rage. Contemplate for a minute what might have happened if it were not an accident—that is, if it were a planned attack; if terrorists actually wanted to do some harm. We have security by good luck and good fortune, certainly not by good management. The simple fact of life is that the incidence of vehicles tailgating was drawn to the attention of the government more than a year ago.

You have to remember that the government were put on notice, like all governments in the world, on September 11 2001. We all knew that aviation was going to be a focus of attack by terrorists. Four years after that, they got an expert from the UK, Sir John Wheeler, to come here and tell them what they should have been doing for the previous four years. One of the things that John Wheeler specifically mentioned was the problem of vehicles tailgating through security gates at our major airports. So a year ago they got advice from their own expert, and here we are in 2006 and a couple of weeks ago precisely that same incident occurred. Where? Our busiest and largest airport—Sydney airport.

These incidents are not isolated. The example in the Daily Telegraph that was mentioned in question time is not a one-off. These are problems that are recurring all around Australia and the minister sits in blissful ignorance of all of this, wanting us to believe that it is all being put right. If those two people who were tailgating through security gates actually did have an aviation security identity card—one of the industry security cards—it probably would not have helped us a great deal anyway. The government put in place this aviation security identity card. It was a good idea; they just have not managed that properly either. In the couple of years in which it has been operating, already in excess of 380 have been lost or are unaccounted for. Think about that for a moment. This is the security pass that gains you access to the secure side of airports around Australia and, in the short time it has been operating, we have lost 380-odd of them.

Yesterday, when asked about this, the minister tried to fob it off by saying, ‘It is just like the Parliament House pass. You might lose one of them.’ I have news for the minister: it is not like the Parliament House passes. Unless he knows something about the checks done on Parliament House cardholders that the rest of us do not, there is not a criminal record check done on people holding a Parliament House pass. The Federal Police and ASIO do not do detailed background checks on everybody who has a pass, including those in the gallery. It would be an interesting exercise perhaps if they did. The simple fact is that an aviation security identity cardholder is subjected to all of that, and quite rightly so, because these people have access to security sensitive areas of airports at a time when we know the aviation industry is a target of terrorists. Yet yesterday the minister blithely passed it off as if it were just like misplacing one of the Parliament House passes. How much confidence do you think that instils in the people who work in the industry, who regard this government’s administration of these matters as a very sorry, sad joke?

There have been plenty of other incidents at Sydney airport that I could mention. I will just refer to two. We all remember the Sydney airport camel suit incident. That was a good one. We all had a chuckle about that. It was a bit of a problem really though. Baggage that was supposed to have been securely checked and examined went off and someone opened it up, took out a camel suit and ran around the tarmac in it. That is what you call a high-security environment! That is the administration this government is running. That was last year.

The member for Lowe has quite correctly pointed out the problems of closed-circuit television monitors at Sydney airport. They are a good thing to have, Minister. You should have a look at them. I commend them to you. The only trouble with CCTV monitors is that for a good deal of the time they are either out of focus or pointing at the wall. They really will not tell you a great deal about what is going on. The member for Lowe is on top of that and I am sure that in due course, one of these days, hopefully before the next election, the member for Lowe might even get some answers to his questions that are on notice about that.

Then there are the regional airports in Australia that are a major weak link in our national security environment. This is not news to the government. I assume they did read the Wheeler report—after all, they went to the trouble of bringing Mr Wheeler from England to conduct the inquiry.

See this speech in context