Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the government's Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 because we live in a different world to the world that we lived in before September 11, the Bali bombings and the range of other incidents that have taken place.

Aviation security is of utmost importance. If we do not have aviation security—if people do not feel confident that they can get on a plane and to their arrival point safely and securely—then the whole industry will collapse. I represent the Adelaide Airport which is smack bang in the middle of my electorate of Hindmarsh. When issues arise about security at airports, aviation noise or any of a range of other things, constituents raise these issues with me—and I have already been contacted about this particular new technology, the body scanner that will be placed in airports around Australia. So I have taken an interest in this bill, because I know a lot of people will be concerned, and it is our job here to assure them that what this government is doing is in the best interest of aviation safety and for the common good of us all.

The central elements of this bill are as follows. The bill will ensure a person at a screening point is taken to consent to any screening procedure, with the exception of a frisk search, unless the person expressly refuses to undergo a particular procedure. It will allow the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to prescribe the persons that must not pass through a screening point and to list, but not limit, the types of equipment—including body-scanning equipment—that can be used for screening. It will repeal section 95A of the act, which currently allows a person to choose a frisk search over another screening procedure. This will mean that an individual will be unable to select the type of technology they are screened by, noting that allowances will be made where there is a physical or medical reason that would prevent screening by a certain screening technology.

I do not believe that the content of this bill is controversial—the opposition are saying that they will be supporting the bill—although you might think it was, given some of the messages the opposition is putting out in the debate today. Nobody would dispute the need for security on our domestic and international aircraft. As I said earlier, safety is absolutely paramount; we all want to feel safe when we get on an aeroplane to go from point A to point B, whether we are travelling regionally, interstate or internationally. The aviation industry changed forever on 11 September 2001.

One of the reasons this bill has come to fruition today in this chamber is that on 25 December 2009, a passenger attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit. This particular bomber successfully smuggled some sort of explosive device through security in his underpants; had he been successful, it could have been tragic. The device which was concealed inside the passenger's underwear contained no metallic components; it could not be picked up by the normal scanners that we go through. It is very serious that these sorts of devices can get onto aeroplanes and cause enormous damage—to passengers and to those on the ground—destroy our aviation industry and highlight the terrorist's program or whatever they are planning.

It is so important that this bill is not controversial. Nobody would dispute that we need that security, and that is what this bill does. In response to the events on 25 December, when the Christmas Day passenger attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines, the government announced on 9 February, 2010, a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security. It is very important that this bill is not controversial. It is important that we have confidence in our airlines and their safety, and that we can get from point A to point B feeling safe knowing that we have done all that can possibly be done to ensure that we have a secure flight. Nobody would dispute that fact.

We know we have had people like this Christmas Day suicide bomber all around the world. Even here in Australia there have been people who have sought to do others harm. It is a very sad thing but it will continue to happen. Thankfully, we have not come to the point where such plans have materialised and been successful here on our soil, or in the air, but I do not believe we should assume a policy of optimism because it has never happened. As our primary means of defence against these harmful acts we need to have good security; that is a given. The only questions go to the detail of, for example, what passengers may take on board, either on their person or in their carry-on luggage, and the means by which people are checked.

Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were able to get on those planes without being detected. Many of us in airports get frustrated at the removal of our shoes, belts and watches, and at the loss of nail files and the occasional item from duty-free. A constituent recently contacted me because he lost a bottle of wine at a gate at an overseas terminal. But these are security measures that cannot be taken lightly, and I would rather know that these things are taking place, that I am secure on a plane, than know that people are being let on board without proper security checks.

By and large we have all learned to live with that. All of us—especially all of us in this parliament—fly regularly, and we have seen the changes over the years, but we accept them and we live with them. By and large we get on with it, and put up with the limitations of what we can and cannot take onto a flight, because safety is paramount. When you weigh up the two, I and most Australians would rather feel safe.

This bill is about the screening process and the process that passengers will have to go through. I would expect that most of the provisions of the bill would pass the common-sense test. Again, we need to ensure the security of aviation and the public. We do not have an optional screening process; people do not elect to be screened nor do they choose their methods of screening. That would be quite unreasonable. We have the means and the obligation to employ the best and most suitable screening technologies and processes that we can. It is these screening technologies and processes that should be applied wherever possible. Hence, we are removing the ability to choose frisking over a technological screen. We will proceed with the best process available. Where a person is physically unable to be screened by a deployed technology, we have an alternative process which will be used, as is currently the case. Again, this is just common sense.

I have had a couple of constituent queries about one aspect of this bill and airport security generally, especially about the introduction of the new body scanners. I want to take this moment to go over a couple of points that some of my constituents have raised with me and have considered to be of particular interest. The body scanners to which I refer have been in the public eye for almost a year. We had them up here as well, and many of us tested them out here in parliament—I am sure many of my colleagues on both sides of the House tested them out. The minister launched a trial of the body scanners in August last year at Sydney International Airport. More than 4,000 passengers volunteered to be part of the trial and were scanned, many of them taking the time to queue up to volunteer and experience that new technology.

From Sydney, the trial moved to Melbourne International Airport in September 2011. It was apparent from these trials that this technology is very effective at picking up the presence of any object being carried on passengers—wallets, keys and the like, and anything else you may have on your person. If this technology had been in place on 25 December on that Northwest Airlines flight, this particular person, the underwear bomber, would have been successfully apprehended. It is apparent from all these trials that the technology is very effective and works very well.

The other issue raised was the energy waves these particular scanners emit. They use very low-energy waves to detect items, metal and non-metal, under a passenger's clothing. The image shows the location of the item on a generic human representation on a screen. It is a stick figure, a very generic outline. The member for Paterson or someone earlier showed us a copy of that stick figure. You cannot tell who the person is, or whether they are male or female. It does not show the person. There is no portrayal of the person's physical characteristics or the characteristics of any of the clothing they are wearing. The scanners do not invade a person's privacy. Many members here trialled the scanner upstairs or in Sydney or Melbourne and would agree with me.

The scanners are safe. More radiation is emitted on an aeroplane flight than from this particular scanner. To put the energy these scanners emit into context, an average mobile phone call emits 10,000 times more radio frequency than these scanners. So for every phone call you make, the emission of energy is 10,000 times more than you would get from this scanner, so you can see that there are no dangers at all to people's health.

People should be assured that they are not being X-rayed like in a doctor's surgery or the old X-raying systems we had many years ago that did perhaps cause problems. The scanning is perfectly safe and not detrimental to a person's health. Nevertheless, there will be people who will be concerned and rightly so. It is always the way with new technology. People are concerned, they are not too sure of the technology and they do not know it too well. It is up to us, as members of parliament and as leaders of our communities, to assure people that there is no danger and no detriment to their health when they are using the scanner. The simple example of a mobile phone emitting 10,000 times the energy of the scanner is something that can put people's minds at rest.

We can assure people that the introduction of these new body scanners will serve us well as passengers and as a community and will ensure our safety. I have the Adelaide airport in my electorate. We require airports, as we heard earlier from other members opposite. They are a hub of the community. They ensure our economic stability and bring people and goods in and out, so it is important that the aviation industry thrives to ensure that we can operate effectively around the country. As I said, once these scanners are up and running, no-one will know what the fuss was all about and we will be a safer nation for having implemented them. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context