Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Hansard source

That is the law—100 per cent of it—and it is checked using advanced technology, in-line X-ray equipment. It has been the law that 100 per cent has to be checked since December 2004—and that is happening and has happened for more than a year. So please, Member for Brisbane, the statement is not correct. The law requires this baggage to be screened—and it is. For that reason I am disappointed that that statement continues to be made.

Australia’s security regime is intelligence driven. It is risk based and it is outcomes focused. I think everyone accepts that the level of risk in some places is higher than in others and that we should devote the maximum effort and our expenditure to targeting those areas where the risks are the highest. Inevitably—and you do not have to be an authority on security to realise this—the capital city airports are more likely to be targets than the regional airports, and the small country airports are far less likely to be targets than those where there are big volumes of traffic. Indeed, whilst Australia’s security risk is assessed as being medium, the reality is that the assessment for regional airports is low.

It would be possible for the airports and airlines to screen every passenger at a regional airport in the same way that the airlines and airports screen passengers at capital city airports. I asked for a rough estimate of the cost of that the other day and it came back at about $500 million if we wanted to screen the four per cent of passengers in Australia who board airports in regional areas where there is no screening. It works out at around $3½ million per site. Some of these airports only take 10 or a dozen passengers a week. Are you seriously suggesting that we should impose a cost of millions of dollars on the local council and local airports struggling to manage services in those areas? And of course they would pass it on to the passengers. Fares would go up by hundreds of dollars in some of these places if we were to impose those kinds of restrictions.

I guess we would if the assessment risk was such that it needed to be done, but the assessment risk is precisely the opposite. We have the Independent member for Mildura, Mr Savage, making these kinds of irresponsible statements in Mildura about how Mildura was a high-risk airport. Indeed, the experts say it is a low-risk airport, but Mr Savage thinks he knows more than they do. Does he want to impose upon the people of Mildura and district levies on their air tickets of $50 or $100 when the experts say the risks do not justify it?

For that reason we need to have a multilayered approach to the way in which we deal with airport security. We do not rely just on aviation security identification cards, we do not rely just on security machines, we do not rely just on security guards, we do not rely just on fences, we do not rely just on deterrent penalties, we do not just rely on closed-circuit television, we do not just rely on intelligence support and we do not just rely on police and other law enforcement agencies. We rely on a combination of all of these things. Inevitably there will be faults in any one of these elements of a security package. No-one is perfect and machines are not perfect, and from time to time therefore somebody may breach one layer of security. But one has confidence that there are many more layers of security to ensure that our system can operate effectively and smoothly. An excellent example of the additional security that has been provided in regional airports is the government’s investment in placing security doors, hardened cockpit doors, on all of the aircraft carrying more than 30 passengers and operating into these country airports. That is an important security measure that the government has fully funded.

The other day I read a report somewhere that the government has spent $35 million on airport security since September 11. I suspect it was a reference to the $36.5 million that we have been providing to regional airports to provide just basic levels of security—things like fences, CCTV, locks and lighting et cetera. Since September 11 we have provided over $1.2 billion in expenditure on security. Of course, the government has not done it alone—the airports have also spent huge amounts of money on upgrading their security at their expense. The airlines spend large amounts of money on security checking, again at their expense, although obviously they pass those costs on to the users of their system. So there has been a massive national effort. It has not been the government alone, although we have provided leadership. We have expected, and indeed required in many instances, substantial upgrading of the services that are provided at airports—and, for that matter, at other transport facilities around the nation—from those who have primary responsibility for securing those systems, but we have been prepared to work with them.

When outside observers have looked at our system, they have been complimentary. Wheeler, in his report, was overwhelmingly complimentary about what we have been able to achieve in Australia and, indeed, made the point that we are world leaders in security in a whole range of areas. Yes, he identified 17 areas where he felt we could make improvements. The government has adopted all of those 17 recommendations and we are in the process of implementing the last of them.

I think one of his most important recommendations was the need to create a unified policing structure at each airport under a police commander. We in Australia have suffered because of territorial wars between state and federal police, between Customs and Quarantine and all the other officers who are there. It is important that there be a seamless approach to security issues and that they work together. We sought the cooperation of the states because I think it is very important that the state police also have a presence in and around airport areas. Some states were very cooperative. Victoria opened up a police station right outside Melbourne Airport because they recognised that some of the criminal activity that they might be interested in could well have an airport gateway. At the same time, the New South Wales government closed down the police station close to the airport and it is now probably three-quarters of an hour away whenever a call is required. So there has not been the level of cooperation in the past that there should have been and some of it has been built from traditions over the years. But I think the $700 million investment that we are now making in a unified policing structure can make a real difference and ensure not only that we have the personnel in the right place but also that there is a coordinated approach to dealing with the various issues.

I briefly refer again to a couple of the matters that were raised by Mr Bevis in his speech. The first was the issue that was highlighted in the Daily Telegraph today. We know that the Sydney newspapers—and, for that matter, others—search out isolated cases, where they can find them, where something has not gone as well as it should have. In this particular case the wide open gate that they were referring to was actually the access to a building site. The Qantas terminal is being upgraded and so a temporary but secure fence was provided to ensure that no-one could breach the airside areas of the airport, which naturally need to be kept safe. One mistake they did make was to fail to take down the sign that was outside the temporary fence. I understand that has now been done and so it will be clear to everyone where the secure area actually starts. But the people moving in and out did not have access to aircraft or the airside operations of Sydney airport.

I also refer again to the oft-made statement by the opposition about the role of Mick Palmer, Inspector of Transport Security, who is often referred to as ‘part time’. It would be fairer to say that he is an ‘on call’ officer who will be invited to undertake investigations and inquiries when there are particular issues which need to be addressed. He is currently undertaking some work, in cooperation with the states, on the issue of land transport security. That report and that work is going well. But if there is a significant issue associated with aviation security then we will ask him to do a report on that as well. He does not have some kind of an inspector-general overall supervisory role. That was never the intention and it was never what was envisaged when the office was created. I think he can play a useful role in bringing to the role his expertise and understanding of security issues for the benefit of the government and we look forward to being able to take up his advice and recommendations on issues of concern.

Airport security is important. People want to be able to travel with confidence. We in Australia are fortunate that we have been spared some of the appalling events that have occurred in other parts of the world. I cannot guarantee that there will not be an attack of some kind on Australia’s aviation system at some time in the future. The risk is currently assessed as medium and, in spite of everything that has happened in the United Kingdom over recent days, that risk has not changed. I am pleased that the UK and the US have both now lowered their own alert levels, so that means travel to and from those countries will be a little easier but still much harder than it is to and from a country like Australia.

We want to preserve our reputation of being a safe and secure place in which to holiday. We live in an insecure world. We live nearby and close to areas where appalling events have occurred so we cannot assume that we are immune from these sorts of problems. It is important that all Australians recognise that they also have a role in securing our country. Everyone needs to be an ‘eyes and ears’—to look out for any potential threat and be prepared to advise authorities on the 1800 number or someone close by whenever they see an issue of concern. I, therefore, do not mind when people come to me about issues or when they perceive that there may be a weak point in our security. In fact, I welcome that advice and the government seek to respond to it from time to time. Quite often, when we check the alleged claims, they cannot be substantiated.

This morning on Sunrise I was confronted with an example of a man who claimed he took some Stanley knives through Karratha Airport. On checking with Karratha Airport, we found that they have no record of it. We have asked the Roebourne Shire Council, who run the airport, and Qantas and they have no evidence of it. If he did so, he has committed an offence, so I can understand why he might not want to be identifying himself. But, where there are deficiencies, we need to know about them and we will seek to address them.

I know that no human being is perfect and no machine is perfect. Of course the terrorists keep trying to get one step ahead of the technology, and so we need to continue to make substantial advances. Our government has been active in funding the development of new security machinery and looking at new systems so that we can deal with issues which might arise in as effective a way as possible. What we do not really want is scaremongering causing unnecessary concerns when in fact the complaints lack substance. The reality is that we do enjoy a safe aviation system in Australia. It is as secure as any in the world—in fact we would say more secure than most in the world. We have put a substantial investment into a multilayered approach to security. A single-layered approach, once penetrated, would be shattered. But when you have a multiple approach where you are seeking to identify people of concern, monitor those who may give rise to incidents and put in place effective barriers such as checking systems and the like, you can have, layer upon layer, a system which will guarantee as much as humanly possible the secure passage of all passengers through our airports and into the international transport system. (Time expired)

See this speech in context