Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, which implements a number of amendments to support the introduction of body scanners at Australian international airports. It should be acknowledged that the introduction of body scanners at these airports is of concern to some Australians and this is understandable. When considering the implementation of this new technology at our international airports, the community will need to be assured that the scans are safe and that their privacy is absolutely protected. Legitimate concerns have also been raised about the level of inconvenience and delays travellers will face at airports and the value that body scanners will add to our overall national security regime.

As Minister Albanese outlined in his second reading speech, the government determined to implement body scanners at Australian international airports after an incident on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009. A passenger on Northwest flight 253 attempted to detonate an improvised explosive device as the flight descended into Detroit airport. The man had successfully concealed an improvised explosive device in his underwear through security screening in Amsterdam and Yemen. The bomb contained no metallic parts and was made from two highly explosive substances. The man was able to walk through a metal detector without causing any alarm to sound. Thankfully in this instance the passenger was not successful. He was detained, and last year pleaded guilty in a US court. The thwarting of a bomb plot using an explosive device similar to that used in Detroit in 2009 by US officials earlier this year indicates that the use of non-metallic explosives is a current threat.

It is understandable that the community would have reservations about the introduction of this new technology at Australian international airports. The coalition referred the bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications to obtain assurances that appropriate health and safety privacy standards are met and that the machines are effective and add to our national security framework. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed. A Senate committee inquiry report has been twice delayed but is expected later this month. The coalition would have preferred this debate to be held after the Senate report was tabled. It is possible that the Senate may propose some amendments to the bill.

This is an ongoing issue which I need to raise on almost every bill that comes before this parliament. The committee processes are truncated, there is no opportunity for committees to effectively look at the issues and frequently a bill is brought on for debate in the parliament before the committees have even reported on it. In this case, the House of Representatives committee has reported but the Senate committee, which has been dealing with some other issues, has not reported. So the House has its only opportunity to deal with this bill before the Senate committee of inquiry has been completed. This has been happening too often particularly in the transport portfolio, but I know it has been happening in other places as well. If the government needs to have this legislation passed by a particular date, do not rush it in at the last moment and expect the whole parliament to blindly debate it without having had any proper scrutiny.

The member for Lyne has made much of the need to improve parliamentary scrutiny and to have a committee system that looks more effectively at the bills. The reality is that the committee system is working worse now than at any other time that I can remember in parliament. The government uses its numbers to push these debates through and get bills to the stage where they come into the parliament even though there may be significant issues that have not been properly resolved. I think that is unsatisfactory process.

Having been critical of the way in which the government manages the legislation in that regard, can I thank the minister for taking up the suggestion I made that the scanners be brought into parliament so people could actually see for themselves how they work. I think that was a useful exercise and I know a number of members did take the opportunity to put themselves through the scanner to see how it worked.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you do it?

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I did, and I notice that all of us are still alive. To our knowledge, it certainly did not have any adverse effect on those who were involved. The health impacts are one of the issues that are being raised quite extensively in the community. I have certainly been made aware—and I am sure other members will have been as well—of people in the public who have concerns about the health impact of these scanners. Employees at airports who may have to use the scanners many times a day, international business and leisure travellers, and airline employees as well as the operators of the machines need to be assured that they are safe.

There are two primary methods of body scanning technology: millimetre wave and backscatter technology. They operate differently. The millimetre waves are a part of the radiofrequency spectrum which is used by a number of different devices such as mobile phones and wireless devices. Backscatter technology is an advanced form of X-ray imaging technology. The government has determined to implement millimetre wave technology. I am advised that the power density exposure for a person undertaking a scan is thousands of times lower than that of a single mobile phone call and is comparable to the passive exposure from a mobile phone used several metres away. The US Transport Security Administration has stated that the technology emits 10,000 times less radiofrequency energy than an average mobile phone call. The exposure is also much lower than that which passengers routinely experience during a flight. I think this is a particularly important point. Anyone worried about these body scanners should not be flying as they will be exposed to more waves on board the aircraft than they will experience passing through these scanners.

The millimetre wave scans are within the limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. The waves emitted by the scan are directed inwards so the exposure of security staff who operate the machines is considered insignificant. The coalition has been assured by the government and the Office of Transport Security that the machines are safe. It should also be noted that 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 by mobile phones and other similar devices. The power levels for the scanners are lower than many of these other sources, including mobile phones, and as such there are no known safety concerns in relation to people with these devices undergoing the scan. Additionally, unlike walk-through metal detectors, people with internal metal implants, such as false hips and pacemakers, will be undetected by the machines and this will address the inconvenience these passengers regularly experience when travelling.

The Office of Transport Security has advised that a person with any illness, injury or disability that would prevent them raising their hands above their heads and standing still will be screened using alternative methods, as will infants and small children.

Perhaps the most prevalent concern in the community about the new scanners relates to personal privacy. It is important in this respect to note that section 44(3)(3B) of the bill states that any image produced by a body scanner:

... must be a gender-neutral, generic image such that the person is not identifiable and no anatomical or physical attribute of that person are revealed.

As I mentioned by way of response to the interjection from the minister at the table, early this year I undertook a scan in one of the machines that this bill will allow to be introduced at international airports. I can vouch for the fact that the image it produces is indeed a generic outline with a yellow box highlighting the area of your body which the machine detects as potentially having something concealed. Of course, there are examples of these kinds of screens available to members. Without wanting to offend the standing orders, Deputy Speaker Georganas, I think this picture gives a clear example that in fact there is nothing offensive about the image and that it is done in a way which should avoid public concern.

This is unlike some technology that has been used overseas, which saw graphic images of passengers produced, stored and transmitted. Not only must these machines produce a generic image but the machines are also unable to transmit or store images. I understand that as a result of the committee inquiry the government intends to propose an amendment to the bill to ensure that any technology that may be implemented in the future also cannot store or transmit images. This will further protect the privacy of Australians.

In introducing body scanners at our international airports, the bill repeals section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act, which currently allows a person to choose an alternative screening method over a selected screening procedure. This means that, where a person is randomly selected to undertake a body scanner, they may not choose an alternative method of screening such as a frisk search. If a person refuses a scan they will be unable to pass through the screening point and will not be able to fly. This is a pretty drastic action and the fact that there is no alternative available means that people are going to have to make up their minds whether they are prepared to be scanned and if they are not prepared to be scanned then they simply will not be able to travel on that flight. I understand that this is the same approach that is adopted in the United Kingdom, though not in the US and some other countries.

The department has advised that this decision has been made primarily because 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 security outcome would be an extensive and invasive frisk search. It is the Commonwealth's belief that this would not meet Australian security standards. But I think also that it is reasonable to comment that those undergoing the frisk search may well find it more offensive, more intrusive than going through the scanner.

Additionally, the department has advised that the significant investment they have made in the new technology will only be justified by having a compulsory scheme. I have to say that I think that is something of a weak argument. It simply raises the question: why make the investment at all if it cannot stand on its merits? Finally, the department believes that the type of technology to be implemented in Australia mitigates the privacy and health concerns to such an extent that the optional system is not required.

As I have mentioned earlier, there is no evidence—and it is almost difficult to conceive that there could be any evidence—that going through this scanner is damaging. The concerns about privacy it seems to me have been strongly addressed through the use of the type of technology that is proposed in Australia. So the department's observation that this technology is such that it mitigates the privacy and health concerns to such an extent that an optional system is not required is a reasonable argument.

The fact that children and those who cannot raise their arms above their head will not be required to go through the scanners creates, however, some significant holes in the security net. The scanners will only add incrementally to aviation safety. Only a handful of countries are actually using this technology. Indeed, it is perhaps interesting to note that one of the few countries that does use scanners is the Netherlands, yet the Northwest Airlines flight which carried the passenger that has been the reason for this legislation coming into the parliament actually went through the security in Amsterdam. That demonstrates that this system, like all the other systems of security, at least to some extent, is not entirely foolproof.

The only total solution is to stamp out terrorism and suppress any ideology which compels people to carry out attacks on civilian travellers. That involves a determination to win the war on terror and strike at the heart of those of ill will towards our country. Evidence of a lack of commitment to stamping out terrorism or exhaustion in the fight will encourage more evil behaviour. We must work to encourage better understanding in our community and a universal commitment to renounce terrorism and attacks on innocent travellers. Scanners can help identify those of ill intent, but only a complete global end to terrorism can make us completely safe.

Finally, I would like to make some comments on the efficacy of the machines. The trial at the Sydney and Melbourne international airports last year saw 23,577 scans undertaken over approximately three weeks. An analysis of the trial indicated that 57 per cent of passengers were able to proceed immediately through the screening point. This represents a much higher alarm rate than walk-through metal detectors. The Office of Transport Security has advised that this higher than usual alarm rate was caused by passengers not being clear on what items they had to divest themselves of prior to scanning. According to the analysis conducted after the trial, alarms were commonly caused by high boots with buckles, currency, hair clips, watches, jewellery, pockets on cargo pants, and additional zips and studs on jeans and pants. As awareness increases as to what items are required to be removed prior to a scan, the proportion of alarms from these sorts of items should decline.

It will take some time for people to realise that the kinds of things that are likely to be picked up in a scanner are different from those picked up through conventional metal detectors. Bear in mind, this scanner does not work on detecting metal or some other kind of material; it works on comparing images with standard profiles within the computer technology. So it is a different kind of system, and different kinds of things will trigger it. That is what makes it obviously worthwhile—it is able to detect some things that cannot be detected by current technology. It should also be noted, however, that the alarm resolution is much quicker than with a walk-through metal detector, as the general location of the article that caused the alarm is identified by the scanners.

These new machines are costly and, like all the additions we have had to security in this country, will add to the cost of boarding aircraft in this country. The government is providing up to $28.5 million to help with the capital cost, but airports will be responsible for the ongoing operational costs, which will add further to the cost of air travel around Australia.

We have just been listening in the Senate estimates to some of the impacts on passengers of the costs of the recent round of security measures in regional airports which are coming online and expected to be operational by 1 July. These measures, which will have absolutely minimal effect on improving the security at our airports, are going to add very substantially to the cost of passengers boarding, particularly in small regional airports with relatively small throughput.

The machinery in itself is expensive, but operating the machinery will be an ongoing permanent cost. The department has admitted in estimates today that costs of up to $50 per passenger will result from these new government regulations, which are effectively imposing a new level of security in regional airports that is difficult to justify. Indeed, I think the $50 figure is conservative, and—when you have the situation where you are going to have to put teams of staff on to check luggage and passengers, sometimes with only one flight every day or two, and with the minimum wages that will have to be paid—the costs will be very substantial. Unless concessions are made or sensible ways found to deliver this level of security, the cost will amount to hundreds of dollars per passenger and not just $20, $30 or $50.

It is also worth noting that the recent federal budget has provided further cost impositions on Australian aviation, and they are just making it so much harder for our tourist industries to be competitive. There is the budget increase in the passenger movement charge, taking it to $55 per passenger from 1 July 2012. The budget has also announced that that charge is going to be indexed annually thereafter. The increase is going to see the government raise an extra $610 million over four years—at the expense of our struggling tourism industry. And by 2015-16 the passenger movement charge alone will collect over $1 billion. This departure tax was originally designed as a cost recovery measure for border services, but now it is just a new tax—a new tax that the government is imposing on our tourism industry and at a time when it is struggling to be competitive internationally.

In addition, the government is now going to charge airports for the cost of AFP officers being present on their site. This is a part of the security regime that people just take for granted: we do not expect to pay our local policeman when he patrols our street. But now when the Australian Federal Police do their job at the airport a bill is going to be sent to the airport operator. The impact of that is clearly going to be, again, higher airport user charges because the airports have got to recover these costs, and inevitably, therefore, yet another cost is going to be imposed on our airport users. It will be a $40-million-a-year charge on airports to partly recover airport policing costs.

At the same time as the government has cut funding to customs and the budget for passenger processing at airports, it has put up the charges. Indeed, one of the distressing things about this legislation is that it demonstrates the government's double standards: more machinery, more scanning equipment et cetera, but, at the same time, in almost every budget it has cut expenditure for customs and quarantine, reduced the numbers of inspections of cargo and reduced the numbers of passengers whose luggage is being inspected at the airports. This is adopting a very slack approach towards security at our airports. Instead, the government is going to impose new charges—a much higher passenger movement charge, and now these extra scanners which will add to the cost of the system—while, at the same time, turning its back on customs and quarantine inspections. If all of this is not bad enough, we have got the carbon tax also adding to the cost of travel in our country. These measures are on top of the carbon tax, which will cost Qantas at least $110 million in 2012-13 and will add $45 million to Virgin Australia's costs. Australia is becoming an unattractive place to visit because of the cost being imposed upon it by the taxes that this government invents. The carbon tax is clearly going to be the worst of them all.

These machines, for which this legislation will provide authorisation, are a further intrusion into our lifestyle. They will slow down passenger movements at international airports and they will test our patience. They are not perfect and trigger many false alarms. I wish they were not necessary. But the coalition notes the advice of the Office of Transport Security and the government that these machines are necessary to improve our national security framework. No responsible government or opposition can fail to heed such professional advice on a matter of security. The coalition is assured that the Commonwealth has taken all possible steps to ensure that the machines are safe and that the privacy of Australians will be upheld. For these reasons the coalition will not be opposing the bill and, in doing so, will not oppose the introduction of body scanners at Australian international airports.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure to follow the shadow minister for transport in one of the rare moments when he is up there talking about transport issues. I thought it was a pretty good speech until we got to the 16 minute mark and it just fell down very quickly from there. Trying to blame the carbon tax is just absolutely ridiculous. It is ridiculous coming from the leader of a party that is shutting country TAFEs in Victoria—he is shutting country kids out of education and he sits there and smiles. I guess that says a lot about them.

I am very pleased to be speaking on the Gillard government's Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 because the Labor government understands the vital importance of maintaining safe and secure methods of travel and the risks posed with international flights—risks posed by the more sophisticated and elaborate ways in which unseemly characters are trying to stop Australian travellers from enjoying the freedoms of air travel. The minister reminded us in his second reading speech:

On 25 December 2009, a passenger attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit.

This would-be bomber successfully smuggled a viable improvised explosive device through aviation security screening and onto the aircraft without being detected.

The device, which was concealed inside the passenger's underwear, contained no metallic components and was therefore able to be carried through a walk-through metal detector without triggering any alarm.

This event highlighted a significant vulnerability in global aviation security screening practices, including in Australia.

Body scanners will be introduced at international departure and transit points in Australian airports later this year. I think that is a very telling thing. When Australians get on aeroplanes they want to know they are safe. What that tells us is that these unsavoury characters are using more sophisticated and elaborate ways with which to inflict harm on the innocent lives of people who are quietly going about their business and using air travel. That is why protecting Australians against the threat of any kind of violence, including terrorism, is an imperative for this government, particularly when examining the security methods of aviation transport, as the bad guys find new and more dangerous ways of practicing their trade.

The bill will ensure that Australian airport security is strengthened, with minimal impact or delay to passengers and, really, the impact will be small and become the new normal for the thousands of travellers who will use this technology in the years to come. I am proud to be part of a government that has introduced this bill—a bill that protects Australian travellers from harm and does so in a non-intrusive and safe way. The fact is we are not introducing the same scanners as used in the US and Europe. The concerns stemming from the American and European models cannot be accurately transferred to the Australian model. Comparing these new scanners to the American and European models is like comparing apples to oranges, and it is contributing to a growing scare campaign as part of the ugly exploitation of the fears of Australian travellers by those opposite. We on this side of the House are choosing to sift through the nonsense, to take the facts and to leave out the scaremongering and the mistruths.

Our policies are based on what is real and relevant to Australians. That is why we have taken heed of the concerns about the backscatter scanners used in America and have chosen not to use them here. We understand that there is a difference, and that millimetre wave technology is the safe body scanning alternative. The Gillard government recognises Australians have legitimate concerns for their health—that is important and is why the government has acted accordingly.

We are not introducing the backscatter scanners to Australian airports; we are instead introducing body scanners that use millimetre wave technology, because emissions from these scanners are negligible. You would actually receive more radio frequency energy as you go about your everyday life. Whereas a single backscatter X-ray emits the equivalent of two minutes in an aeroplane, the millimetre wave scanners we are introducing use ten thousand times less radio frequency energy than your average mobile phone call. That is like standing in the kitchen while someone is using a mobile in the lounge room at home. There are no conclusive studies to suggest that there is any health risk posed by the millimetre wave scanners that will be introduced to Australian airports; the studies dispel the misconception that millimetre wave technology is somehow bad for Australians. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering a safe and harmless method of protecting our aviation industry, protecting Australian travellers and protecting Australian jobs.

It is important to note that scans taken by these machines will not be intrusive or breach the privacy of our citizens. The government understands every person likes their right to privacy, and for this reason privacy enhancements to the scanners will be made mandatory in Australia. There have been instances in the US where we have seen genuine concerns for the so-called 'pornographic pictures' taken and stored by body scanners, but we are not using the American model. The privacy enhancements this government has made compulsory prevent any image from being stored, transmitted, displayed or even created. No-one travelling through Australia's international airports will ever have to worry whether their image could be displayed on some sort of body scanner dotcom website or something. The protection is there that no image is created in the first place.

This bill will ensure that the closest thing to raw images that will come from these scanners will be some sort of resemblance to the kids' character Gumby. The picture of the head might be a little bit more symmetrical—like the little green animation figure—but the images that come from body scanners will be humanoid, and rightly so. That is about as far as it goes. These are generic human shapes, unidentifiable, non-specific, genderless stick figures, which are used to highlight areas of concern. The purpose of these stick figures is to highlight areas of a person which warrant further investigation by highly trained security staff—inspections which could save the lives of passengers and crews on international flights. Security will be able to go directly to the point of concern and immediately clarify any concerns.

We understand that airport security can sometimes appear cumbersome. I am sure we have all queued up in those lines at the airport to put our bags through the scanners, and waited and waited and waited as big long queues form because someone has left a deodorant in their bag. But that is what we have to deal with. Standing in front of the metal detectors with your arms out can also be very slow and awkward. The process of body scanners will help ease that strain, with a direct approach to security points of interest.

The bill will ensure that, whilst the safety of Australians is protected, the effects of the security processes do not heavily impinge on the every-day commuter's trips. Technology is changing and it is vital that our security systems change with it. Too often we hear 'back in my day'. Nostalgia may be comforting when we remember those days, when Pluto was a planet and the daily paper was about 20c but that sepia-tone haze cannot protect us any more from the evolving technology of those who wish to do us harm. Yes, there was a time when we did not have these body scanners, but there was also a time when we did not need them.

That time is the past, and it does not do well to dwell on it. We must learn from the past and we must not remain in it. When we see a hole in the system, when technology has evolved that can be a threat to our safety, we must act. When the bad guys see an opening, we have to block it. The Gillard government understands that metal detectors alone are no longer enough. We have seen in recent years how terrorism is evolving and we need to ensure that our bases are covered. Metal detectors will not be replaced by body scanners and will still be used by airlines. However, it is important that our aviation industry is also protected against alternatives to metallic methods of terrorism.

Those such as the 'shoe bomber' and, more recently, the 'underwear bomber' have already successfully bypassed current security systems. It was only three Christmases ago that the underwear bomber was able to smuggle plastic explosives on board an international flight. That person was able to successfully pass through security checkpoints onto the plane, smuggling non-metallic explosives in their underwear. Thankfully, the explosives failed. But it would be irresponsible for us to let this happen again. Labor' response to this failed attack was very swift. Body scanners are just another way in which we continue to enhance Australia's aviation security.

These body scanners will prevent terrorists like the underwear bomber from making it onto that plane. The government is making it clear that those who think they can get through Australia's security are wrong and will be caught. It is also for this reason the bill will deliver a no-opt-out policy. This means passengers must go through whichever primary screening procedure is used at that e airport, with the exception of those who have a serious physical or mental reason to use an alternative. No screen: no fly. Being able to opt out for an alternative method means being able to choose which security procedure may best be exploited. The Gillard Labor government is removing the gaming from aviation security. If a person will not undergo the nominated screening process, they cannot choose which alternative best suits them and they cannot fly. It is vital that we do all that is possible to prevent those who intend to do us harm from getting the upper hand.

Here on this side of the House we say 'yes' to protecting Australians' right to privacy, to be healthy and safe from threats of harm by extremists. I am proud to say that the Gillard Labor government is delivering on this goal.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 and to support this bill, but I do so with some reservations about this government's policies and the effect they are having on the tourism and aviation industry. This bill seeks to introduce body scanners at international airports and remove section 95A opt-out provisions that allow a person to choose a frisk search rather than being scanned. We support that entirely.

We all want to be secure when we travel. On its own it would be hard to quibble with the notion that Australians be afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism. Neither would the coalition argue with the aspiration for new security technology, such as body scanners, to be used in such a way that give travellers the greatest protection with the minimal inconvenience.

The need for greater security was brought home to us back in 2009 when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. What was unique about this man was that, unbeknown to security officials, he had a 15-centimetre explosive device sewn into his underwear. The device was not detectable, despite the stringent security measures in place—as anyone who has travelled to the United States can testify—as it did not contain metallic elements. Had the so-called underwear bomber been successful, 290 people would have perished in the air—not to mention the collateral damage on the ground.

The coalition welcomed the government's announcement of a package of measures in February 2010 to ensure a similar incident does not occur here in Australia. We believe it is important to follow the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and the Netherlands in introducing body scanner technology. We will therefore not oppose the repeal of section 95A, particularly as body scanners were successful in thwarting a device similar to that worn by the underwear bomber in the US last month.

Now that there has been a voluntary trial, where some 20,000 scans were undertaken at Sydney and Melbourne international airports in August and September last year, we see no reason to delay their use any further. Putting the requisite safeguards in place, where body-scanning equipment is used—that the image must be gender neutral and non-identifiable—is extremely important, as is the provision that machines not be able to store or transmit any information or data. With the power density exposure for a person undergoing a scan less than a thousand times that which emanates from a mobile phone, according to the USA Transport Security Administration, any health concerns in this regard would appear to be slight. This brings me to some reservations I have as the shadow minister for tourism and regional development. Our tourism industry contributes $73.3 billion share to Australia's GDP, and along with the hospitality sector provides almost one million Australians with employment. As I have said in many forums, the industry has been doing it very tough in recent years due to a number of factors. These include: the anaemic growth in many of our largest markets for inbound visitors, exacerbated by our strong dollar; competition from new and highly-competitive destinations in our region; the impact of natural disasters such as the Victorian floods, Western Australian bushfires and Cyclone Yasi; and, of course, short-sighted, ill-conceived and economically counterproductive policies introduced by this government.

The latter has been responsible for Australia falling in the World Economic Forum's Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index from fourth in 2008 to 13th last year. The coalition is determined to ensure the industry's global competitiveness. With the phenomenal growth in China, which has seen Chinese visitors surpass those from the United States to become our third-largest market for international visitors, and the growth from other Asian markets, we are excited by the further prospects our Asian neighbours can generate for Australian tourism.

However, for that to occur it is important for Australia to make a good first impression. The government therefore needs to understand that there are no second chances at first impressions, and must ensure that measures in this bill are administered with the least inconvenience to the travelling public. Although we want our nation to continue to be seen as a very safe destination to travel to, there must be a recognition that airports are usually the first experience many of our international guests have of Australia, and the last impression they have of us when they depart. It is important that their experience of travelling from our airports is not perceived as an unpleasant one due to unnecessarily overzealous, inefficient or unfriendly security measures.

I must say that previous experience of this government's policy does not provide me with a lot of confidence. For only in the last budget this Labor government has cut the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service funding as part of its forward estimates, and cut its capital expenditure by $19.5 million during the same period. This leaves open the real likelihood that despite more international arrivals there will be fewer officers and services to process them, leading to lengthier queues and longer waiting times.

After the dramatic failures of their border protection policies at sea, it is strange that this government thinks it is a good idea now to make cuts at airports: impressions, impressions. Not only will queues lengthen due to Customs and Border Protection cuts but our international guests will now only be able to bring in two packets of their favourite smokes. On the face of it, this may seem a very minor hindrance. However, what the government has not considered is that this will require a wholesale printing of landing cards which currently state that you can bring in a carton. I can just see an elderly Chinese couple arriving on QF130 from Shanghai at 8.30 in the morning. Despite the hospitable service of our national carrier, they are tired after an 11-hour flight and wearily they disembark the aircraft with a carton of 'Double Happiness' ciggies for a friend who had specially requested them. They join the lengthening queues at Sydney Airport to be processed by a reduced number of customs officers who now have to spend additional time charging duty or confiscating cartons from passengers. As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker: impressions, impressions.

In any case what plans has the government to put in place to update international duty-free schedules around the world? What monies have they set aside to let our international visitors know of these changes? When in the next month is it going to happen, and where is the estimated $10 million cost of an emergency reprint going to come from? It certainly will not come from any surplus revenue the government is expecting because, as Steven Clarke from the Australian Duty Free Association highlighted in his media release last week, the government has seriously overestimated its receipts from this policy.

Tourism is a price-point sensitive product in what is an increasingly competitive global marketplace. But this government has not only increased the likelihood of waiting times at our airports; it has made it more expensive for visitors to arrive in this country. From its 45 per cent hike in the passenger movement charge since 2008, with a 17 per cent increase in the recent budget alone, and increases in visa fees, tourism has simply been a cash cow to plunder for this government. Despite employing more people than those working at the country's federal and state governments and the private agricultural, finance and insurance sectors, tourism was seen as less deserving than the Australian steel workers. They received $300 million in carbon tax assistance, but the tourism sector did not receive a cent—not one cent in direct industry-specific assistance.

Australia is one of the most, if not the most, urbanised nations on earth. Of our nearly 23 million people, 80 per cent live in three per cent of land mass and in just six cities. This fact, coupled with our relatively small population, creates a range of policy challenges for policymakers and regulators. There is the age-old problem of communications: we all expect first-world services when we are as a people early adopters of technology, including smooth and clear phone calls. Yet the costs of these services spread over few people means that as individuals we pay dearly for them.

Although an urban people, we identify strongly with rural, regional and remote areas and their populations. While many of our regional locations in Western Australia and Queensland are doing well out of the mining boom with increased economic activity and air services, I also want to bring to the attention of the House the significant challenges facing many other regional, remote and rural places that have not been so fortunate. They have not been helped by the significant cost imposts imposed by this government. When the Wheeler review—

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

Order! Can I remind the member that we are debating the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill, and that you are skirting over the borders of that debate? I ask the member to come back to the bill.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, when the Wheeler review of airport security and policing was released in 2005, it called for security costs at airports to be shared by governments, industry and the general public. It also stated:

It is neither practical nor desirable to expect 100 per cent security at regional airports. The sheer diversity of Australia’s regional airports makes the challenge of common standards of security an impossibility. Any protective security enhancements should be undertaken in accordance with a local threat and risk assessment and not instituted on the basis of what is sometimes media-driven scaremongering.

I am concerned that there are a handful of our smaller remote airports that may not meet the deadline imposed by this government to be security-screening compliant. I hope that we show them some flexibility and afford them some latitude in meeting this challenge. We want to aid rural areas by encouraging tourists, particularly international tourists visiting the outback, yet we face the same cost challenges in making this affordable. Similarly, we want our population to be distributed and remote Australia to have the same access to services that urban Australians enjoy. We have been innovative in dealing with these challenges. For example, the School of the Air and the Royal Flying Doctor Service are ways for remote Australians to receive decent education services and life-saving health services. The wonderful thing about technology is that it creates solutions to the tyranny of distance.

From listening to regional airline operators at the RAAA Summit held in Parliament House on 19 March this year, however, it is clear that they are facing a disproportionate economic challenge. From 1 July this year, regional carriers are facing what the Australian newspaper called a 'triple whammy' of imposts from the Gillard government. After the carbon tax, the second of these imposts will be the costs of the new fees they will be charged to cover these new airport security measures. If this was not enough, they are also facing the loss of the $6 million en-route subsidy scheme. Brindabella's Jeff Boyd has said that all these imposts will do is increase the costs of an air ticket because the companies have already introduced all of the environmental cost-saving measures they possibly can and new, more fuel-efficient aircraft are not currently available. The 'triple whammy' will therefore simply have the effect of reducing regional aviation's competitiveness against the automobile in what is also a price-point-sensitive market. New fees to cover airport security could lead to a $12 to $20 levy per passenger on Brindabella to cover the $4 million cost that Tamworth Regional Council may impose for building new baggage-screening facilities. Factor in the loss of the en-route subsidy scheme and the airline's recruitment levy to sponsor new pilots from South Africa, and flying begins to look much less attractive to travellers. It will not be long before demand is affected by the growing cost of a ticket, putting regional aviation businesses and employees' jobs at risk.

Regional, rural and remote areas are often heavily dependent on their regional air links for visitation, access to services only available in the cities, and tourism and economic development. Without such links these areas could be left condemned to isolation and economic stagnation. In 1997 there were 54 regional carriers operating 237 regional routes, and today I believe that figure is less than 20, flying around 125 routes.

As I said in my address to the RAAA summit, four European and two Australian carriers have gone out of business in the past six months, so we can see the effects that these cost pressures can result in, particularly at a time when the global industry as a whole is struggling with falling patronage and rising fuel costs. The costs of greater security being passed on to airports and ultimately airlines should therefore be carefully monitored and regularly reviewed.

The carbon tax will also make Australia a more expensive destination to visit, with tourism businesses being affected as disproportionately high energy users. The increased cost will not be felt just by international visitors but also by Australians wishing to holiday at home. It was Qantas's CEO, Alan Joyce, who told a Senate committee that his company estimated the cost would be as high as $115 million in the first 12 months. Virgin Australia has said their equivalent will be $45 million. Qantas said that $6.80 will be added to the cost of a flight from Perth to Sydney, and Virgin said that it will charge an average of $3 per flight to cover this Gillard tax impost. Is it any wonder, then, that there is a growing tourism trade deficit which the Transport and Tourism Forum expects to reach around $8 billion in the next financial year?

In conclusion, whilst the coalition welcomes measures that make it safer for people to travel to, from and within our country, the government should see this in the wider context of making Australia a more competitive destination to visit. Both the tourism industry and regional Australia deserve better from this government, a government that has made our nation more expensive to visit and which has been quick to take from the tourism sector, giving very little in return.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 is about safety and confidence, without which we would not have an aviation industry and consequently we would not have a tourism industry in this island nation, because aviation lies at the heart of our economic activity as an island nation. The aviation industry underpins our economic growth and provides a gateway to the wider global economy. The sector directly employs around 50,000 people, and a further half a million people indirectly. It contributes around $7 billion to our gross national product. Australian aviation, despite the protestations that the sky is falling in, has seen solid growth for the ninth year in a row, a fact that has obviously escaped the member for Paterson in his Chicken Little deliverance on this legislation. When I listen to the member for Paterson, I am reminded of the parliamentary cliche that never are so many angry words said as in the course of agreement.

The aviation industry is seeing solid growth, and it has for the last nine years, with domestic and international flights continuing to increase, carrying record numbers of passengers in 2010-11—and it is forecast that that growth will increase into the future. The latest Avline report for 2010-11 shows that the number of people flying internationally to and from Australia continued to grow—27.6 million, up seven per cent—along with the number of people flying domestically, up six per cent to 54 million passenger flights per year. In 2030 there will be more than twice the current number of passengers travelling through our capital city airports, increasing from around 100 million passengers today to almost 235 million passengers by 2030—a fact that I will return to in my concluding statements. Right now investment in airports is forecast to be around $9 billion over the next decade, to 2021. Despite the intensely competitive nature of the aviation business and the challenges posed by the high Australian dollar, Australia's aviation sector is strong and its outlook is bright. This does not mean there are not policy challenges to deal with in this sector. In December 2009, the Australian government released an aviation white paper entitled Flight path to the future. This long-term strategy reaffirmed safety and security as the No. 1 priority for aviation. Australia has a world-class security regime but we remain vigilant to new and emerging threats. The member for Paterson recently talked about the underpants bomber and the events that have led to us commissioning the report which led to the technology and the legislation which is before the House today.

The Australian government has an obligation to all air travellers to ensure that every effort has been made to make their journey as safe as possible. Indeed, following the release of the aviation white paper, the Australian government released a $200 million aviation security package which recognised the importance of cooperation both within the Asia-Pacific region and globally.

The legislation, as I said, is about the confidence of the travelling public in the aviation industry, and body scanners are one of the technologies that are critical to providing safety and therefore confidence by the travelling public. As part of this government's investment in aviation security, we are investing in new and improved technologies, increased policing at airports and strengthened security procedures. The introduction of body scanners is one of these important measures.

Body scanners will be in place in international airports by 1 July this year. Due to the widely publicised health and safety concerns surrounding the use of backscatter X-ray body scanners overseas, only body scanners that use millimetre wave technology will be deployed at Australian airports. I make this point because there have been some comments made publicly about the health concerns raised in relation to body scanner technology. We did a parliamentary inquiry into and heard evidence on this—both expert evidence and evidence from concerned members of the public. The upshot of that inquiry is that we are confident that there are no known adverse health effects associated with the use of the adopted technology, the wave body scanners, that will be installed in our airports. As an example, one body scan emits around 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than a person could be expected to absorb during the length of an average mobile phone call. I am confident, as every member of this House should be confident, that these body scanners will present no health threat to the travelling public.

One of the things that is different, and will be made possible by this legislation, is that we will no longer have an opt-out arrangement. Currently there is the capacity for passengers to opt out of using the body scan and therefore having further and, dare I say, more invasive forms of screening accompanying their trip. But, as a result of this bill, when passed into law, there will be a no-opt-out policy. The no-opt-out policy prevents a person from refusing to undertake a body scan—or indeed any other form of primary security screening—in favour of undergoing some alternative screening procedure. This will prevent 'gaming' of the system—for example, a person having the ability to select the type of technology that they will be screened by. This has both efficiency implications and security implications.

If a person refuses to undergo a screening procedure, they will be refused clearance and prevented from boarding an aeroplane. It is important to note that allowances will be made where there is a physical or medical reason that would prevent screening by a certain screening technology. These exist at the moment—for example, a person in a wheelchair or a person unable to hold the required positioning in the body scanner will be screened by alternative methods suitable for their circumstances.

In the course of community consultation, privacy issues have been raised. I can assure the public that only body scanners with privacy enhancements will be used in Australia. These body scanners will only create and display a generic human or 'stick figure' image. For example, if I were to pass through one of the body scanners, the image that would be visible to the Customs staff or security staff would be exactly the same image as that which would appear on the screen if the member for Paterson were to pass through the screen. We are of considerably different stature but the image on the screen would be identical for those who are observing the screen as we pass through the screening technology. There will be no 'raw' or 'naked' images, and the various and wonderful different shapes that are presented at airports will not be presented on the screen, or displayed or transmitted by these scanners. Finally, on the issue of privacy, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has been consulted on this technology and is comfortable with what is being proposed.

I would like to conclude with a couple of observations about the aviation industry. As I have said, this technology is critical to the future confidence of the travelling public. The entire white paper and the $200 million aviation security package are critical to aviation and therefore the tourism industry in this country. But there are other decisions that need to be made by governments at all levels. In March, both the federal and New South Wales governments received one of the most comprehensive independent studies ever done into Sydney's, and therefore Australia's, aviation needs. The 2012 the Joint study on aviation capacity for the Sydney region report shows that existing aviation infrastructure in Sydney will not cope with future aviation demand—which, as I have already said, is set to double over the next 20 years. It is clear that Sydney needs a second airport and it needs it sooner rather than later. All the body scanners in the world—indeed, all the permission to allow the travelling Chinese public to have a few extra packets of smokes in their duty-free luggage—will not overcome the fact that we need to expand our airport capacity in the Sydney region. Sydney airport is increasingly operating at capacity and its peak period is growing. Sydney's size and land transport problems mean that the airport cannot deal with the increases that are forecast. The need to act is clear. We need to act now by making a decision about the location of the second airport.

By the year 2035 the cost to GDP of turning away flights will be $6 billion per annum. This is something that will be condemned if we allow it to occur, because it is simply an issue about jobs and our economy. International experience shows that airports create 1,000 jobs for every one million passengers. Without action, growing congestion will hurt productivity as flights are turned away, and those that do arrive face longer and longer delays. We are already seeing the impact on one of Australia's aviation hubs, Sydney airport. Sydney Airport is of critical importance because four out of 10 flights nationally fly into and out of Sydney. Canberra—as much as we all love the place—is simply not an alternative.

I am pleased that the federal government is acting on this issue by doing a detailed investigation into the suitability of Wilton, including conducting preliminary economic, social and environmental impact studies. The development of an airport at Wilton, a area adjacent to the Illawarra and very close to my electorate of Throsby, would bring new infrastructure, economic development and, most importantly, jobs to my region. It is for this reason, notwithstanding the environmental and social concerns that have been expressed by some people—particularly in suburbs relatively more close to the Wilton area than mine—that I believe this is a critical project and one that should be supported by the people of the Illawarra.

The many constituents I have spoken to are excited about this project, and I hope to see it move ahead in the years to come. It is not something that is going to immediately turn the economic fortunes of the Illawarra around, but the approval of Wilton as a site for a second airport for the Sydney region would provide a future economic strategy for the region, which is much needed as we go through the economic restructuring which has been visited upon us by movements in the manufacturing sector, the high Australian dollar and the recent announcements by BlueScope Steel that it will be exiting the export steel market.

I am very buoyant about the future of the industry, and I am very buoyant about the capacity of our region to contribute to the future of the industry. As I said at the outset, safety and confidence are critical. The legislation before the House today, which is part of a broader $200 million aviation security package, is critical to that. I commend this legislation, and this industry that is critical to our country, to all members of the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. When Prime Minister Rudd first announced a plan to introduce body scanners into Australian airports in response to the failed aeroplane terrorist attacks on Christmas Day 2009, I was immediately concerned that it might be an overstep into the personal liberty and dignity of Australians. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, almost 11 years ago, democracies across the world have had to weigh the consequences of liberty and safety against each other to find a balance such that we do our best to protect national security while respecting individual rights.

Fortunately, since September 11, our robust parliamentary democracy has ensured that these concerns have been considered, debated and negotiated to the finest detail. The concerns in relation to this bill are no exception to that tradition. The coalition supported the referral of this bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications in order to be absolutely sure that appropriate privacy and health standards are met and, more practically, that the machines are an effective addition to the national security framework for Australians.

During my participation in the committee process, many of the concerns I have just mentioned were assessed in detail, and I am now assured that these machines are a necessary step to enhance our national security framework. I would like to thank the 13 individuals and organisations who provided submissions to the committee, and of course I thank my colleagues who gave their time to the committee process. I note that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will provide further consideration and comment on this bill. I look forward to the tabling of the committee's report when the time comes.

This bill will implement four amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Firstly, the bill states that a person is assumed to have consented to any screening procedure unless otherwise expressly refused, with the exception of a frisk search. Secondly, it has provisions for dealing with people who are unable to pass through a screening point. Thirdly, and most importantly, it lists but does not limit the types of equipment which may be used for screening and also provides that any images produced using body-scanning equipment must be gender neutral and non-identifiable. Lastly, the bill repeals section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act such that travellers are no longer able to opt for a frisk search vis-a-vis other types of screening procedures.

The technology we are talking about is called the L-3 Communications ProVision millimetre wave body scanner—the same or similar technology used around the world, including in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The technology works in three stages. First, a beam of radio waves of a one- to two-second duration is transmitted to a person within the body scanner. Second, receiving antennae pick up the reflected energy and analyse it with software called 'automatic threat detection algorithm' that is contained within the unit. Third, if an anomaly occurs, such as those produced by items on the body or inside clothing, a generic human image is generated with a small box superimposed over the location of the anomaly.

One concern that was raised about this new technology is the potential health implications of the radio waves—a common community concern. I understand that the active millimetre wave scanners use what is called non-ionising radiation in the form of millimetre waves, very similar to the radio frequency radiation emitted by mobile phones. This non-ionising radiation produces less energy and fewer physiological effects than ionising radiation, according to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. These waves are able to pass through clothing and organic material, meaning these appear to be transparent to the analysis machine.

The human eye can only respond to and see wavelengths within a very tight band. We cannot see radiation; we can only see its effects. Often, as the human condition dictates, what we cannot feel, touch, see or hear, we cannot understand, and often we fear what we cannot understand. Fortunately, with today's modern technology, scientists are able to experiment with millimetre waves and investigate their impact on humans. The technology in these body scanning machines means an individual is exposed to the radiation for less than one to two seconds, which is the equivalent of a very short mobile phone call, or the equivalent of passive exposure from a mobile phone used several metres away. It is always important to mitigate the risk of health implications when considering radiation-emitting technology and, in this case, it appears that such concerns have been addressed and that the body scanners do not pose a risk to the health of aeroplane travellers. Indeed, passengers are exposed to considerably more radiation just sitting on the aeroplane.

Many submissions address the privacy concerns that the body scanning process may create. As Civil Liberties Australia noted in their submission:

Australians are being given no choice about being forcibly subjected to the scanners, which is a complete denial of civil liberties …

  …    …       …

… Australia must start to return … towards our traditional freedoms of movement, speech and assembly which existed before 9/11.

This is a view to which I am sympathetic. Politicians and governments of any country must always respect the fundamental importance of vigilance when looking at bills that impose restrictions on liberty. It is easy to resort to extremes. Of course, as some have suggested, if we give up our supposed liberty then the terrorists have won.

However, the privacy concerns that Civil Liberties Australia and others have raised do not address the particular details of this bill. What happens when someone undergoes security screening at an airport? As the explanatory memorandum notes in relation to proposed section 44, the ultimate image produced by the body scanner:

… must be a gender-neutral, generic image such that the person is not identifiable and no anatomical or physical attributes of that person are revealed.

Fortunately, as a result of the committee process, the government intends to propose an amendment which will ensure that any technology used cannot store or transmit images. This is a desirable outcome which will further protect the privacy of Australians. I have seen firsthand the types of images that this technology creates and, in fact, because this technology is able to pinpoint an anomaly to a specific part of the body, less intrusion into a person's privacy is required. This also means that cultural and religious concerns are protected, as religious items or clothing would not be required to be removed. Similarly, the selection of an individual would continue in line with the current explosives screening process—that is, someone would not be selected on the basis of their race, religion or gender, and selection would be undertaken on a purely random basis. As such, I would consider the process of going through one of the scanners to be no more onerous then going through a metal detector at the airport or putting your luggage through a scanner.

Furthermore, the bill will repeal 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act, which previously allowed a person to choose an alternative screening method. The bill proposes that when a person is randomly selected to undergo a full body scan, they may not opt out or choose an alternative method of screening, and, in the case that they refuse to be scanned, that they then may not pass through security. I am sure that the vast majority of Australians agree that they are willing to forgo one to two seconds of their time in order to protect the national security of this country.

However, I do not agree with the government's argument that because this new scanning technology is so expensive, the program must be made compulsory as a mechanism of inducing cost-effectiveness. That is an appalling line of reasoning—the exact same justification that this Labor government uses for the wasteful way they are rolling out the NBN. It is illogical to suggest that something is cost-effective because you are forcing someone to pay for it even if they do not want to do so. But we know that this government does not believe in logic or reason. However, given that the purpose of the full body scanners is to pick up items that are by their very nature difficult or impossible to detect by any other means, the only other alternative would be an extensive and extremely invasive body search. The Department of Infrastructure and Transport noted:

The only alternative method of screening that would provide a similar level of assurance to that of a body scanner is an enhanced full body frisk search.

Forcing people to go through an extensive frisk search would not be in line with community expectations and therefore an opt-out provision would be inappropriate in this case. Additionally, this screening process could be beneficial for people with disabilities and other medical conditions that would make a frisk search prohibitively intrusive. I understand the privacy concerns of many, but we must not ideologically dismiss out of hand something that, when examined in detail, is no more a deprivation of liberty than the current security process that many people go through, either at the airport or even as they enter their workplace.

The efficacy and consequent impact on passenger facilitation rates was also examined by the committee. Many submissions proposed that the body scanners would be incapable of detecting many types of possible threats. For example, the Australian Airline Pilots Association cited evidence from the United Kingdom that some types of powders, liquid or thin plastic would not show up as anomalies. Similarly, another submission proposed that the scanners would result in an excessive rate of high false positives which may be caused by certain types of footwear, a person's posture or other layers of clothing.

Fortunately, we can look at the evidence from trials conducted at Sydney and Melbourne airports last year, which saw almost 24,000 scans during a three-week period. The results from those trials indicated that 57 per cent of passengers were able to proceed immediately through security, which is a higher alarm rate than walk-through metal detectors. The trials will assist with the ultimate rollout of body scanners across Australia, as analysis conducted after the trials indicated that the higher alarm rate was caused by a lack of familiarity among passengers with the new process due to their not being aware of which items had to be removed before they undertook the scan. The resolution process itself, however, was found to be quicker than walk-through metal detectors, as the image produced indicates a specific position on the body part where the anomaly is located. The effects on passenger facilitation rates, which are similar to the effects caused by the current explosive-testing process, would, it seems, be minimal because the basis for selection is random and this is not likely to produce bottlenecks at security stations. Delays would be much more likely to be caused by screening for carry-on baggage—and, indeed, this is the case today. Every person has been through a metal detector and forgotten to take off watches, hairclips or jewellery. I expect that, as passengers become more familiar with the new process, passenger facilitation rates will improve.

There were many concerns in the community when this bill was introduced. Throughout the committee process we assessed many issues in reaching our conclusions on concerns about health, privacy, efficacy and passenger facilitation rates. I am satisfied that this bill weighs the considerations of liberty and safety and finds a balance which respects the individual rights of Australians while also protecting our national security.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Looking around the chamber, I see that there may be at least one or two members who, like me, recall being able to go to an airport for a domestic flight and buy a ticket over the counter and that and there was no need for identification, no screening and no bag X-ray and that you could simply walk on board the plane provided you had a seat allocation. It was a little bit more difficult on an international flight—you needed a passport, at least. In those days we did not even know about digitised imaging on passports. I hasten to say that I certainly do not include you among the one or two members I mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker Grierson.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a charmer!

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection! 9-11 changed our world a heck of a lot. It was a serious wake-up call about community safety. No government is going to be accused of being soft on terrorism on its watch; no government is going to wilfully create a window of opportunity for organised crime or terrorists. Since 9-11 things have never been the same, and they will never be the same. This is a tragedy. We all think we grew up in great times but things will never be as they were in the past—and, because of 9-11, they never will be the same. We will always be vigilant about the terrorist threat and we will always ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools, technology and support to combat the terrorist threat on behalf of our community.

Technologically, too, things will never be the same again. We have seen great advances in technology over the last few years. I am laughed at when I go to a maths class at a school these days and talk about how I was taught to use a slide rule and that we used log tables.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Geoff used to use an abacus!

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member opposite is saying that the member for Bass used to use an abacus. He probably did use one in Geelong—but they are advancing too, I notice! The massive improvements in technology been great for the community. We all benefit from it—our productivity and economic advancement depend on it—but there are others who also benefit from advances in technology. Serious and organised crime has made a business out of it. We hear about people's identities being stolen, which we did not know about in the past. More importantly, we are seeing that people will exploit every window of opportunity they can to commit a crime or to terrorise—or to demonstrate that they have the capability to terrorise—our community.

We need to have equipment such as full body scanners to be able to combat these acts. This bill aims to ensure that the technology we give to the agencies which are charged with protecting our community is sufficient for them to do their job. I know that many think that what we propose to do with this bill is a serious violation of basic human rights and a gross invasion of privacy. People who say that are right: it is. Many things we do in this place very much limit the rights of members of our community but, hopefully, we do these things for very good reasons and for good purpose. When we do such things, we must balance them with the overall good of the community. I say this passes that overall for-good test, particularly when you think back to 2009—not all that long ago—when we heard of the Americans arresting the 'underpants bomber'. He had the idea that he could defeat the scanning technology by strapping an incendiary device to his underwear. Obviously a lot of advanced chemistry was involved and a whole host of other things went into planning, but this bloke's whole concept was to defeat the current technology of body scanning. He was successful in getting on board the aircraft, which flew from Amsterdam to Detroit. Fortunately, he was not so successful in properly detonating his device and the plane landed unharmed. Thankfully, he was taken into custody. He was certainly not repentant for his sins against the community. He made it very clear what he intended to do—to destroy the aircraft and everyone on board. That is a classic example of how those that wish to terrorise our community use advances in technology to defeat whatever technologies we have in place to combat these efforts. The world will never be the same in terms of the issue of terrorism, so we can never take our foot off the throat of those who would purport to harm our community.

About 2½ years ago, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—of which, I note, Madam Deputy Speaker Grierson, you are also a valued member—inquired into the security of ports and airports. You will recall that, during one of our inspections, we visited the airport in South Australia. Whilst it was not necessarily germane to what we were looking at at that time, they discussed the prospect of full-body scanners. At that stage the notion of what full-body scanners might do ranged from a full naked X-ray of a person through to what you could see under a person's underwear. A whole host of things were canvassed with the committee. But the advances that have been made in this technology mean that, with the scan, the figure is graphically shown as a stick figure. So it would not discriminate between the member for Lyons, being the fit and able person he is, and me, being a little bit more sedentary—the same stick figure would show for both of us. That at least gives me a little hope for the future! If something unusual was detected on the body, that would light up. If there was something on the hip, the scan would not show up as a firearm or a knife—that location would just be identified and lit up and security officers could then address that.

It is not invasive in terms of having naked pictures of people stored. In fact, this bill will ensure that the machinery, the technology, that is used has no capability of storing or transmitting any material or image. Therefore it is solely a piece of technology that will allow airport security to make the judgment as to whether to detain somebody for further examination on the basis of what is indicated on the image of the stick figure concerned. So, in terms of the argument about civil rights, I think all sides of the House can be assured that we have the balance right. We have arrived at a piece of technology that does not intrude on people's privacy; it is just able to scan the body to detect unusual objects associated with it.

The amendments contained in the bill will support the country adopting, if it is successful, the body scanner which is now being trialled both in Sydney and Melbourne. As I understand it, some 23,000 people have gone through that trial. By the way, they had one scanner here in Parliament House and a number of members participated in that trial, as well as, I understand, a couple of journalists. So people are now confident about the image issue, but I think that, more importantly, they see this as essential to ensure that Australian travellers are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism. It actually brings Australia in line with countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, just to name some.

I know from my discussions with international law enforcement agencies that these technologies are now being widely looked at as being necessary to protect not only the citizenry of countries but people moving in and about their states. This will not be exclusive to the advanced countries I have just mentioned; it is something that will become more affordable for a wide range of countries. It will be implemented not simply because it is becoming synonymous with modern aviation but to protect the safety of the community. The bill will also ensure that technologies such as body scanners will be able to advance in the future. It will ensure that we will be able to upgrade, to acquire further image-processing technologies that may be seen in the future as essential to combat terrorism or those who would attempt to defeat the system.

The intention of this bill, apart from ensuring that we will have technology to protect the community, is to be ongoing, to ensure that we stay vigilant—that we do not say: 'This is the be-all and end-all. We've got to have it and that's it.' It does at least acknowledge that at the moment this is the best technology available. Down the track, the issue is going to have to be revisited, depending on how technology develops and if this system is likely to be defeated.

The bill is consistent with all elements of human rights. It provides a greater measure to strengthen Australia's aviation security. I think that the limitations, where it could be seen to limit an individual's freedom or to offend issues of privacy, are well outweighed by the intention of this bill—that is, to protect the community.

I support the bill and commend it to the House.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. The purpose of the bill is to implement a number of amendments that are to complement the introduction of body scanners in Australia's international airports. Since 11 September 2001, aviation authorities around the world have increased security measures to ensure passengers, crew and the general public are kept safe. Passengers and crew safety is paramount when regulating and administrating an aviation system, especially in a vast nation such as ours where a trip from one side of the country to the other by car can take several days compared to a few hours by plane.

Further, larger numbers of aircraft are flying around Australia than ever before. For the year ending June 2011 domestic airlines flew over 610,000 flights, which was up 6.5 per cent from the previous year, and international airlines flew over 150,000 flights during that period. If the increase in aircraft movements is not enough of an indication of the expansion of our aviation industry, the increase in passenger numbers most certainly is. Around 54.75 million passengers flew on Australian domestic airlines during the year ending June 2011, which was up 5.8 per cent from the year before. In the same year, there were 27.55 million passengers on international airlines, which was an increase of 7.5 per cent from 2010.

In my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast, the Gold Coast Airport saw passenger numbers rising to 5.17 million in 2009-10, representing an overall compound average growth rate of 9.6 per cent. According to the Gold Coast Airport's preliminary master plan, there will be an expected total of 16.3 million passengers by 2031-32. That number will be made up of 14 million domestic passengers and 2.3 million international passengers.

Airports, as a result of the increasing airline activity, bring a significant amount of economic benefit to their surrounding communities. The Gold Coast Airport alone provided over 1,700 individuals with employment at the end of June 2010. The economic impact of the airport precinct was $269 million, whilst facilitating $1.59 billion worth of tourism for the Gold Coast-Tweed region in the 2010 financial year. The aviation industry as a whole contributes $6.5 billion to the national GDP and employed approximately 51,000 people in November last year. Further, the industry grew by 6.3 per cent in the year ending 30 June 2011.

It is evident from these statistics that the regulation and administration of safety in the aviation industry is no trivial matter. We are dealing with millions of people every year in an industry that, if damaged significantly, can detrimentally affect the nation and the nation's economy. If flights stop, families do not see each other, businesspeople do not get to and from their meetings or where they need to be, mail and parcels do not get delivered and certain goods being transported by air remain off the shelves.

Many businesses count on the Gold Coast Airport to bring in tourists from both domestic and foreign markets. The Gold Coast tourism industry is currently fragile, due to a number of factors—including the high Australian dollar. Businesses and their employees cannot afford for an incident to occur with the transportation of visitors to the Gold Coast due to the lasting perception it would potentially create. We witnessed late last year the detrimental effects of issues occurring within the aviation industry, such as when industrial action was taken against an airline. The aviation industry facilitates trade and commerce in this country, and we witnessed the toll that stoppages could have on the country.

Although we hope that it will never come to this, it is still a sobering thought to contemplate the consequences of a successful terrorist action on board an aircraft. The September 11 attacks showed us that there are not only unnecessary and devastating losses of life but vast economic impacts. Therefore, when a man tried to detonate an explosive device he hid in his underwear on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, it sparked concern amongst the aviation industry, because the device was not picked up in preflight screenings. This was because the explosive device contained no metallic objects and was therefore not picked up by metal detectors. What was even more concerning was that the would-be bomber had smuggled the explosive device from Yemen to Amsterdam before boarding the flight to Detroit. This incident has shown that there are still those who will go to any lengths to harm innocent civilians.

It has also shown that there is vulnerability in our security-screening practices at airports and that we must continue to be constantly vigilant when it comes to protecting our national security. As a result, a trial of body-scanning technology was undertaken at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport from 2 to 19 August 2011 and at Melbourne International Airport from 5 to 30 September 2011. Volunteers standing in the main queue for screening were asked whether they would be willing to participate in the trial and then were directed randomly to go through the scanner. From the trial, in which over 23,500 passengers were scanned, 57 per cent of passengers were cleared to proceed straight after passing through the scanner.

However, the proof-of-concept trial report noted that passengers were six times more likely to alarm in the body scanner than in a walk-through metal detector. The report found that, out of every 1,000 passengers, on average 230 personal items within or under a passenger's clothing were detected, compared to 43 items per 1,000 passengers who walked through a metal detector. Many of the items detected by the scanner were hairclips, jewellery, coins and notes, watches, high boots with buckles and other miscellaneous items. Cargo pants, studs on jeans, zips and buttons, baggy clothes that create folds and sequins on shirts all caused the alarm in the scanner to go off.

In Senate estimates, the Office of Transport Security was asked about the rate of false positives during the trial period. The representatives of the office who were present at the hearing stated that the rate was somewhere between 20 and 40 per cent. That would mean that, out of the 230 items detected per 1,000 passengers, between 46 and 92 items were false positives.

Screening officers were also required to undergo training due to the high rates of officer-passenger interaction involved. According to the Office of Transport Security this should not mean any changes in the time it takes to process passengers. The average time to scan a passenger is 1.5 to 2.5 seconds, with delays in passenger facilitation rates more likely to occur when luggage is being scanned. The scanner that the government wishes to use, the L-3 Communications ProVision millimetre wave body scanner, has been cleared by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency as well as the Department of Health and Ageing, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and overseas authorities. The power density emitted from the scanner to the passenger passing through it is 1,000 times less than that emitted by a mobile phone call.

Although the introduction of the scanner is central to the context of this bill, the bill itself does more than allow for the introduction of the scanners. It amends the act in question to provide legislative support for methods used in the utilisation of the scanner technology. The major changes the bill will make are the assumption of passenger consent to a screening procedure other than a frisk search unless such consent is expressly not provided. The bill will also list the types of equipment that airports will be able to use for screening, as well as specifying that, when body-scanning equipment is to be used, the image used to identify anomalies must be non-gender-specific and non-identifiable. As expected—and this has been raised by previous speakers—some of the changes have raised privacy concerns for our passengers. The body scanners provide a readout on a screen that identifies where the anomalies are located on the body. The bill provides that a generic stick figure, rather than a gender-specific image, will be used to identify the areas in which an anomaly is located. Further, the scanner will not be able to store or transmit images of scans that have been taken of passengers.

Aviation security is a serious matter affecting millions of people each year as they travel around this country and overseas. As air travel becomes much more common, with greater passenger numbers and more flights, we need to ensure that we are doing all that we possibly can to protect the lives of the many people who choose to utilise air travel—as well as protecting the aviation industry and the many other industries that rely on its good health.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 is one that everyone should support. We know that the safety of our aircraft is a vital part of the services that governments and the industry should provide. All members of this parliament believe in the safety of our air services. We are an island nation and air services are a vital method of getting tourists to Australia and, in particular, to my island state of Tasmania and my electorate of Bass. We know that everyone will support this bill. We probably go on too much in this place about safety in speaking about this bill, but the reality is that everyone should endorse it. This is a safe measure and we should be working with technology to get the best method of securing safe aviation.

It would be a risk for any attempted bomber to smuggle viable improvised explosives onto an aircraft coming into Australia with a device concealed in a passenger's clothing. So it is really important that we respond to the incident that occurred on 9 February 2010. The government announced a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security and that package included $28.5 million to assist the aviation industry to introduce a range of technologies including body scanners, multiview X-ray machines, bottled liquid scanners and additional explosive trace detection units at international terminals. To allow aviation screening officers to check people who present at an aviation security point, we should be giving them all the powers they need to undertake this vital work. Our body scanners will facilitate safe air travel in this country. We know that the Liberals support this bill because they believe in safe travel in Australia and it is time they got on board to support this legislation.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.45 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.