Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Additional Screening Measures) Bill 2007. This bill will strengthen Australia’s national security and in doing so enhance, as the member for Blaxland said, the protection of Australian travellers and workers within the air services industry. We should not forget in debating these issues that a number of us travel frequently, but the people most exposed are the workers in the industry. It is therefore very important from a health and safety point of view that we attend to these issues on a regular and rigorous basis, because those people will potentially be putting their lives on the line every day of the week if we do not get this security regime right.

When you think about it, air travel in years gone by was seen as a glamorous pastime reserved for the rich and famous. The only fear associated with flying then was about coming to grips with the gravity-defying suspension of a metal projectile several kilometres above the earth. How times have changed. This debate signifies just that, and what a great challenge we have as a global community. The fear associated with flying has been redefined in the 21st century as the global community comes to terms with the threat of terrorism that, in the six years since September 11, has changed all our lives for the worse. It has manifested itself in congestion, longer waits, closer scrutiny and screenings that any passenger on both domestic and international travel finds themselves subjected to if they want to travel by air. We all have to appreciate that we have to put up with this and be patient with the workers who have responsibility for carrying out these vital duties. Unfortunately, sometimes when you go through airports some passengers are not sufficiently patient about what is a very difficult task. It is about time some of them learned to respect the difficult job being carried out by ordinary workers in trying to secure our safety in the air.

I say that because the threat is not imaginary, and that is what this debate is about. Unfortunately for the global community, terrorist networks continue to have an active interest in undermining aviation. This week, for instance, Australia’s top transport bureaucrat revealed that the terror threat to the aviation sector was high and that an attack would devastate the economy, with the potential to wipe out $30.1 billion from our economy over two years. So it is not just a threat to our own security as human beings; it is also a threat to our economic prosperity as a nation. Just think about potentially wiping out $30.1 billion from the economy over two years. That would equate to a loss of two per cent of Australia’s GDP and 146,000 jobs if terrorists were successful in destroying an Australian airliner. This bill, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Additional Screening Measures) Bill 2007, appropriately seeks to enhance airport security and ultimately goes some way to trying to stem this growing global concern, a growing global threat to our own security as human beings.

The bill results from the thwarted terrorist attack at the United Kingdom’s Heathrow Airport on 10 August 2006. Security officials at the United Kingdom’s Department for Transport revealed on the arrest of 21 main suspects in the planned attack that, if carried out, the plot would have committed mass murder on an unimaginable scale. That was the objective: mass murder on an unimaginable scale. The planned attack was sophisticated and international in its scope and is thought to have involved up to 50 people. It also revealed a key weakness in the world’s airport security, with the terrorists planning to use liquid explosive disguised as beverages and other common products and detonators disguised as electronic devices. The liquids and the devices would have been assembled airside, having been taken through passenger and cabin baggage security, and then the explosions would have detonated aboard the trans-Atlantic aircraft whilst in flight.

The cunningness of the plot is frightening. It involved comprehensive planning and understanding of the air security processes and, unfortunately, an extensive network of willing participants. Perhaps what is most worrisome is that, whilst this particular terror threat originated out of the thwarted United Kingdom attack, the framework and mode of operation governing its design was not home-grown by those apprehended; the vast majority of those arrested in the United Kingdom were of Pakistani origin, which means that the threat is by no means confined to the United Kingdom or even Europe.

An attack similar to that thwarted by the United Kingdom’s security services in August could be mounted any time in the world, and this poses very serious challenges to the global air community. That is why the opposition stands in support of this bill as a needed measure to deal with a threat that, while not conceived of even six years ago, has been brought about by the rapidly changing world in which we live.

The bill will enhance screening measures to limit the amount of liquids, aerosols and gels that can be taken through an international screening point by people flying to and from Australia. It also introduces a new section to allow an additional capacity for screening officers to ask travellers through a screening point to undergo a frisk search. These changes will come into effect on 30 March of this year and will apply to international travellers to and from Australia. It is a huge challenge for our community.

Last year we welcomed 5.5 million visitors, of whom incidentally 29 per cent arrived on Qantas planes alone, while 4.9 million residents departed Australia for an overseas holiday. This means it will potentially affect over 10 million air travellers, which is a significant number of people, and needs significant planning for successful implementation. In that context, I congratulate the airlines and the airport owners and the associated contract security companies for the practical and responsible manner in which they have conducted themselves in negotiations with the department to put these changes in place. It is a huge challenge to the industry and it also requires us, the travelling public, to work with the aviation industry to implement this successfully because there will be problems in the initial implementation.

The amendments conform to the recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, and have been adopted in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union. This bill will ensure that Australian screening procedures will harmonise our airport security regulations with the actions already being taken worldwide. It will obviously mean some disruption to passengers’ habits when travelling internationally, as they can now only carry on liquids in containers of no greater than 100 millilitres which are to be contained within a resealable plastic bag of maximum capacity not exceeding one litre. This requirement that liquids be stored in a transparent bag may seem an oddity; however, its benefit is that liquids will be easy to display and inspect and hence it will overcome, wherever possible, unnecessary delays at security points at airports.

The new regulations reflect the simple fact that present-day screening machines cannot distinguish one liquid from another quickly enough to allow for an efficient airport screening process. So, while it will be inconvenient for some passengers accustomed to taking on board their own beauty products, soft drinks, gels and deodorants, if the current regulations remained it would result in even lengthier disruptions and longer queues. It is a practical way forward.

The disruptions caused as passengers familiarise themselves with the new regulations are also anticipated to be minimal and will soon be seen as normal practice when completing airport security screening, just as we have adapted to all the other changes over the last five to 10 years. As a community, Australia continues to demonstrate its ability to adapt for the right reasons to new situations, and Australian travellers have matured as a travelling public to one that now accepts that increased security measures are in the best interests of everyone’s safety. Overseas experience in the EU, the United Kingdom and the US show that the regulations can be adopted relatively easily with careful planning and good consumer education. The planning and community education component of the new guidelines will be critical if they are going to prove successful at keeping delays to a minimum while also delivering improved security.

Remember: this is not going to be easy, because the effects of this bill potentially impact on over 10 million people. For that reason this week I welcomed the minister for transport’s announcement that 1,900 security screeners will start training in threats to air security from liquid explosives. This is a new challenge to the workers engaged at the coalface in carrying out and accepting these additional responsibilities. They are not ordinary security guards operating at a hotel in the city or a bank in the suburbs; these people have huge responsibilities and they should be respected and paid accordingly. The four-hour training will hopefully ensure smooth airport security processing of passengers post-31 March 2007. Additional staff will also be present at airports on the day of introduction to help ease any delays, and the Federal Police have been given briefings on liquid bombs.

This preparation within the industry, and the community education, hopefully will help avoid the chaotic scenes of Heathrow immediately after the August 2006 thwarted attack that saw thousands of holiday-makers facing severe delays with massive queues snaking through airport terminals. I also welcome the commitment demonstrated by airlines—and they have spoken to me about this—in willingly adopting new security measures that will increase their workload and heighten the responsibility of care for passengers.

The issue of terrorism has placed huge and additional responsibilities on airlines and airport owners. The nature of airline travel has changed radically not only for passengers but also for airlines with respect to how they operate and the responsibilities of their staff. And remember this: it is the staff who will have to accept responsibility for implementing these new regulations. In recent years, by way of example, Qantas have invested over $260 million in increased air security measures to close down loopholes that could have posed possible terrorist threats. As the Wheeler report noted, security at our airports pre-September 11 was at times dysfunctional, lax and impeded by a lack of effective policing. We have come a long way since then, but we must always remain vigilant to overcome any weaknesses in the system.

It is therefore of continuing concern to the opposition—and we have continually raised this since September 11—that the screening of luggage at regional airports is inconsistent. Late last year more than 67,000 regional flights were unchecked in Australia. That is a huge loophole. These are serious issues, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, as you know as a Tasmanian. You only have to go to Burnie to see this gaping hole in aviation security. I believe that people flying out of these regional airports are not provided with the necessary air travel protection, and it is about time the government got serious about doing something to close this loophole.

Community education on the new regulations is just as imperative. The rollout of the department’s marketing campaign must occur as scheduled because, let’s face it, 31 March is not far away. As a frequent traveller, I often speak with other passengers and I am acutely aware that the community’s understanding of the new regulations is currently far from adequate. The great majority of Australians would have no understanding of the complexities of the bill before the House today.

The government have advised the opposition that brochures will be sent to travel agents, airlines and airports. I only hope that this is enough. It is their responsibility to make sure not only that they put legislation in place but also that the workers undertaking the duties are adequately trained in partnership with the airline industry, airports and security companies. The government need to go that one step further and educate the travelling public about the inconvenience that will be caused by these necessary regulations. I say that because there is a lot of community confusion out there about duty-free items in particular. I urge the government to ensure that a community education campaign clarifies how the new regulations will impact on duty-free purchases.

Some people are unaware that they can purchase duty-free goods such as spirits, perfumes and beauty care products once they have cleared security. Items purchased beyond the screening points are subject to separate security controls and are deemed safe for passengers to take on board only when they are disembarking from the plane they have boarded as their final destination—that is, they do not have any connecting new flights. If they are travelling to a new destination on a new plane, they are required to clear security again, when any duty-free products may be confiscated. For example, if I were flying to Los Angeles from Sydney or Melbourne, and LA was my final destination, then I could purchase duty-free items; however, if I were connecting to a domestic American flight, I would not be able to do so.

These issues have been raised with me by the airline industry. We have to make sure that the travelling public is aware of these difficulties or there will be major concerns when people have purchased such duty-free products. Obviously there will be some exceptions to the new regulations—for example, mums needing milk for their babies or people with illnesses who require medication.

I welcome the department’s liaison with community groups on the implementation of the new regulations. In particular, the Cancer Council is keen to ensure that sick people are not discriminated against. The government has also indicated that investigations are underway on whether the new regulations will be applied to domestic flights. I understand from my frequent consultation with the industry that there is some concern with this proposal. Federal Labor will monitor this situation very carefully.

I say in conclusion that national security is a priority for the opposition, but it is not interested in unnecessarily burdening travellers in the air travel industry with regulations that do more to appease our notional fear than to improve security. It is about getting the right balance. As a party we are committed to optimising security and responding quickly to any new threat, yet the industry’s tolerance and ability to absorb the increasing list of regulations must be considered on the way through.

This brings me to a further criticism of the government in respect of this bill. The ICAO recommendations, adopted largely worldwide, stipulate the need for the new regulations to be brought into effect by 1 March—a date that will lapse tomorrow. There can be little doubt that the safety of air travellers and workers within the air travel industry, including flight attendants, pilots and crew, has been diminished with the emergence of this new threat. Planes have always been vulnerable terrorist targets and, whilst the resistance has been fortified, terrorists intent on causing harm and destruction will always think of another avenue of attack. That is why the government needs to respond quickly to this new threat and to not wait another month before implementing the necessary new regulations.

An ICAO letter to all member states, including Australia, highlighted that success for mitigating and eliminating all threats to civil aviation could be achieved only through the concerted effort of everyone concerned, in a close working relationship between the national agencies of member states, which includes Australia. Unfortunately, as reflected in the member for Brisbane’s second reading amendment, it seems from time to time that the government is suffering from jet lag on this front. For a government that supposedly prides itself on national security, this is an oddity. Could it be that, like so many other issues nationwide, the Howard government has grown tired from 11 years of government and it is unnecessarily potentially placing the Australian community at risk? The opposition simply say that Australia must pursue aviation security with the diligence it has shown in the past. We also ask that the Australian community have regard to the very serious issues covered in the opposition’s second reading amendment. This is not about debating and playing games with the government; it is about reminding the government that it must always be vigilant, that there are potential weaknesses in security at regional airports and we expect the government to fix these gaps. It is the government’s responsibility. We obviously would relish the opportunity to do it, because we think we can do a better job. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context