Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. In my electorate of Solomon we have the Darwin International Airport. My electorate and indeed the Top End of the Northern Territory is the gateway to Asia. The Northern Territory's economy relies heavily on a strong tourism industry, particularly foreign tourism. I accept the Office of Transport Security's assurances that the body scanners are necessary to enhance our national security framework and I also bear in mind that the new technologies like this will increase safety for all travellers.

However, I must note the concerns relating to the millimetre-wave body scanners expressed to me by my Solomon constituents. An issue raised with me by some is that there is a possible health risk, particularly for those who are frequent travellers. However, my understanding of the technology is that the scanner emits 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than an average mobile phone call does and also that the scans are within the limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.

Further to this, the government and Office of Transport Security have assured the coalition that these machines are indeed safe. Active implanted medical devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators are designed to meet a series of standards which require the devices to be protected from interference from external energy sources such as mobile phones and other electronic equipment. The power levels for the ProVision body scanners are lower than many other sources including mobile phones and, as such, there are no safety concerns. Furthermore, due to the very low power level of the body scanner, it will be unable to detect internal medical devices such as pacemakers and metal hips.

Another issue raised with me was that of privacy, particularly from those who believe that the machine projects a nude photo of the person's body. However, section 3(3B) of the bill states that any image produced by a body scanner must produce a gender neutral generic image such that the person is not identifiable and anatomical or physical attributes of the person are not revealed. The image produced by this scan is a generic outline. If the machine detects an anomaly, the scan highlights the general section of the body where the object is concealed. That image cannot be kept or transmitted elsewhere.

The bill repeals section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act which allows a person to choose an alternative screening method of other screening procedures. This means that a person who is randomly selected to undertake a scan may not choose an alternative method of screening such as a frisk search. If a person selected for a scan refuses, they will be unable to pass through the screening point.

This new approach was adopted from the United Kingdom and is based on three primary reasons. Firstly, the security outcome: the scanner is designed to detect items that are by their nature difficult or impossible to detect by other means. The only alternative to the body scanner which may achieve the same outcome would be an extensive and invasive frisk search. The government believes that this would not meet community standards, and we would have to agree. Secondly, the cost effectiveness: the government has invested in the new scanning technology and believes that this expenditure can only be justified by having a compulsory scheme. Finally, the technology type: the department believes the type of technology to be deployed in Australian international airports mitigates the health and privacy concerns to such an extent that an optional system is not necessary.

Another concern raised with me is that of efficiency and time. The trial at Sydney and Melbourne airports last year saw more than 23,000 scans undertaken over a three-week period and 57 per cent of the passengers were able to proceed immediately. This is a higher rate than with walk-through metal detectors. According to the analysis conducted after the trial, alarms were commonly caused by high boots with buckles, money, hairclips, watches, jewellery, pockets on cargo pants and additional studs or zips on jeans and pants.

I am sure my colleagues in the chamber are aware that these are often the things that set off metal walk-through detectors even here in Parliament House. The trial found that the alarm resolution was quicker than with walk-through metal detectors as the scanners indicated the area that had caused the alarm. The Office of Transport Security has advised that, as expected, the time spent in the scanner is longer than that for the walk-through metal detectors. The passengers to go through scanners will be chosen on a random basis, like for existing explosives testing. The Office of Transport Security believes that delays at screening points are more likely to be caused by screening for carry-on baggage than by body scans. This was supported by the findings of the trial.

A sensitive issue which arose out of the House Committee for Infrastructure and Communications inquiry was the notion that the machine may infringe upon a person's cultural and religious beliefs. However, passengers will not be required to remove any religious items or clothing. I have been informed that the department has engaged with religious groups through the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to ensure that the processes are culturally sensitive. It should be noted that individuals will not be selected on the basis of their race, religion or gender. As I said, body scans will be undertaken on a purely random basis.

I believe this technology does a lot for protection of the individual traveller but will also do a lot for protection of our image and reputation as a safe tourist destination. As I said earlier, in my home of the Northern Territory tourism is incredibly important to our economy. In 2011, approximately 1.2 million people visited the Northern Territory and spent approximately $1.4 billion. Darwin International Airport has approximately one million passengers walking through its doors each year. The national average for those employed by the tourism industry is around 8.2 per cent of total employment. Tourism in the Northern Territory provides approximately 19,800 jobs for Territorians, which equates to around 17 per cent of the Territory's total employment.

Measures like body scanners will uphold Australia's and the Northern Territory's reputation as a safe place to visit, despite our crocodiles. The world we live in is not the one a lot of us grew up in. In today's climate of international terrorism, measures like body scanners must be taken to ensure the safety of Australians and those visiting us. As the member for Solomon I will not be opposing this bill because I believe we should do everything we can in this parliament to provide safety and uphold Australia's reputation as a safe country for tourism.

See this speech in context