Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Additional Screening Measures) Bill 2007. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services has already outlined the basic reasons for the unfortunate necessity of this bill. Before discussing the merits of this legislation itself, I would just for a brief moment like to set the scene, to illustrate why these measures are necessary. First of all, like it or not, we are currently engaged in a war against a very real enemy: the terrorist. This enemy, either because of twisted ideologies or pure unadulterated hate, especially for the West and all it represents, has been clearly exposed as prepared to go to any length to further its destructive agenda. Unfortunately, unlike that celebrated terrorist attempt under the Houses of Parliament in London in 1605, the mechanisms for carnage and destruction today are somewhat more difficult to spot than a large stack of wooden kegs full of dynamite.

In the last hundred years, the nature of one’s enemy has changed even more dramatically. We have seen the creation of groups like the Irish Republican Army, the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Japanese Red Army and various groups associated with anti-Israeli or anti-United States agendas. Some of these groups are fortunately fairly transitory and small, but one or two successful plots can cause damage, destruction and heartbreak for many families. Perhaps, had there been tougher screening processes in place nearly 20 years ago, Pan Am flight 103 might have continued safely on its journey instead of exploding in midair near Lockerbie in Scotland. All 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground died. That awful event remains Britain’s largest mass murder. There were explosives on the plane and the rest is a tragic entry in our history books.

Until this century, terrorist acts were considered to happen ‘over there’—mainly in Europe and with the odd instance in Asia. Bali changed all that. Beautiful Bali, whose name, immortalised by Rodgers and Hammerstein, conjured up lovely beaches, lush tropical scenery and happy, smiling Balinese people, suddenly became shorthand for the terrible day in October 2002 when terrorism hit Australians. Australians were clearly the target; thus this was a deliberate act of violence against Australia and Australians. We had joined the growing list of countries to become terrorist targets.

We only have to look at the London Underground bombings to realise that terrorists can now be home grown. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is not unthinkable that someone—even a resident of this country—could attempt to board a plane to commit a terrorist act. We have also entered the era of a whole new type of terrorist group. Previously they had been fairly localised and/or small in number. Their very extreme nature—limited resources, localised aims and cruel and callous acts—has also served to limit the size of these groups. Now, however, we are seeing terrorism typified by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda become a global threat. They have a very clear world view, ideology and agenda. They have very clear objectives. They are also extremely well funded and have a potential recruiting base of millions of young people.

The Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, is the real front line of the war on terror. With Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the world watched two state based terrorist regimes. The focus of al-Qaeda and other similar organisations is, by necessity, Iraq and Afghanistan. This has the benefit of keeping the front line off Australian soil. The bloodshed in Iraq today is largely occurring despite, and not because of, the presence of coalition forces. This is a battle between Iraqis who have had their first taste of freedom and democracy and those fundamentalists who want to deny them the freedom we so often take for granted.

The terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world are illustrations of the terrorists’ determination to try to scare decent, freedom-loving countries such as the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Japan and others from helping Iraq forge a new destiny. You can never appease terrorists; you fight or you lose. There will be no ‘peace in our time’ delusions and no imagining that we can walk away and stay safe. It worked in Spain. If you kill some people, the politicians will cave in. Not here, not this government, not this Prime Minister.

Moving to the specifics of the bill, it is necessary to tighten screening requirements for liquids, aerosols and gels because of the events in the United Kingdom in August 2006. The UK police arrested a number of persons who were planning to smuggle improvised explosive devices onto aircraft using liquid explosives disguised in drink bottles. We have already seen apparently well-planned attempts to use various substances, such as liquids, aerosols and gels, in terror attacks. This threat is real, and had it not been for the efforts of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom we would be counting bodies instead of our blessings.

The use of these substances presents a whole new array of problems for agencies charged with the task of detection of dangerous substances and those dedicated to the protection of the general public. The enhanced screening measures for liquids, aerosols and gels are consistent with measures adopted by the United States, Canada and the European Union. Therefore, although Australia, along with those countries and entities I have just mentioned, is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism, there is an international campaign to ensure that air travel is safe as is humanly possible.

There is a broad agreement to support the measures proposed by the federal government. There are only two small amendments that are necessary to the ATSA. The first widens the power to write regulations under the ATSA to be sure that the regulations can address liquids, aerosols and gels. At present, there are regulations which broadly cover those and other substances, but the government wants to make it quite clear that these materials are indeed included. The second amendment writes in a general capacity to allow screening officers to ask passengers to agree to random and continuous frisk searches to supplement the enhanced screening regime. This amendment is necessary to assist screening officers to ascertain the possession of dangerous substances. More importantly, it will give the airline officials the ability to use refusal to permit a search as a valid reason for not permitting a person to travel on the aircraft.

The amendments to the ATSA will be followed by amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to set out the detail of liquids, aerosols and gels. The core feature of the liquids, aerosols and gels measures is a restriction on the maximum container size that can be carried through an international screening point. The maximum container size is 100 millilitres, which is roughly equivalent to 100 grams. All containers presented for inspection must fit comfortably within a one-litre transparent resealable plastic bag.

There is a limit of one bag per passenger. This bag is to be presented to the screener for visual inspection. The bag will also be X-rayed. There will be exemptions for items such as baby products and medical necessities for use during the flight. The amendments respond to the vulnerability highlighted by the UK terror plot to use liquid explosives on board aircraft. They are part of the Australian government’s ongoing commitment to securing the aviation industry and keeping the travelling public safe.

As I have already observed, these measures are not excessive or draconian. They are consistent with similar restrictions introduced in the United States, Canada and the EU. Industry has been consulted in the development of the proposal and broadly acknowledges the need to deal with the vulnerability caused by liquids, aerosols and gels. The Australian government is making every effort to engage and advise industry groups, such as the airline industry and the travel agent industry, so that passengers can be advised of the changed requirements before they arrive at airports. Initial implementation of the new requirements may cause some difficulty and potential delays for passengers on inbound and outbound international flights.

The fact that the restrictions apply to carrying apparently safe items like bottled water through a screening point makes the restrictions seem unnecessary. Being an island nation, our aviation services and centres assume even greater importance than those of countries in a less isolated geographic position. What this bill seeks to do is to enhance the ability of Australian agencies to detect such substances when they are being taken through aviation centres in Australia. On 8 September, the Prime Minister said that, as is the case in the United Kingdom, ‘the focus of preventative detention is primarily about stopping further attacks and the destruction of evidence’.

By the very nature of the offences we are trying to prevent, ascertaining the success of such measures is difficult because when they are successful things do not happen. But these measures are putting another brick in the wall of counterterrorism. This measure on its own will not stop the terrorists. But, added to the other measures introduced by the Howard government since the appalling international watershed of September 11, these amendments can make it just a bit easier for our officers to protect us and just that much more difficult for those with malevolent intent to harm us.

I would like to add that I am sure that members opposite will agree to these amendments, which are only being proposed in order to protect the lives of Australians and visitors to our shores. There will of course be the usual suspects who will wring their hands about civil liberties. I agree that protecting standard civil liberties is very important—up to a point. But I hold that our greatest and most important civil liberty is the right to live. When others are deliberately trying to take away this most basic of all liberties we need to take whatever effective measures we can to protect our citizens.

I have also heard the term ‘scare campaign’ being bandied about over some of this government’s actions. I remind all members that this is no smart, slick, spin-doctoring exercise. This is not making some ill-founded or baseless prediction about something which will probably never happen, such as the non-existent mass sackings under Work Choices which were predicted by the ACTU. This is about preventing the deaths of more Australians and others at the hands of callous mass murderers. I support this bill.

See this speech in context