Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The issue of costs has been brought up, but what is more relevant here, if we want to talk about costs, is that that is actually one of the reasons the government has given for making this change. The minister has said that it would be more cost effective for the industry to force people to take a body scan than to offer the alternative of a frisk search. It really is not acceptable to justify removing an opt-out provision on the grounds that it is more costly to preserve people's civil liberties. Again, we could get it right here and it has been shown in many other jurisdictions how that can be done.

To comment briefly, I was obviously disappointed in the minister's comments. Considering the position the government has locked itself into, I would like to share with my colleagues a comment Civil Liberties Australia made to the inquiry. They argued:

… where freedom of choice is practical, it should be offered to Australians in all possible circumstances.

These principles were upheld by the Senate inquiry. I note the minister failed to answer my question regarding if and how the recommendations from the Senate inquiry and from the Australian Airline Pilots' Association submission were considered.

The evidence provided to the inquiry did not demonstrate that there will be a reduction in the level of security if the current arrangement for a frisk search as an alternative screening procedure is continued. That is the essence of it. We are here to ensure the safety of air travel and there is the expert evidence that it would not be compromised, so why is the government going down this path? That is a question that still has not been answered.

Question negatived.

Item 1 on schedule 4 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (2):

(2)   Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 28), after subsection 44(3A), insert:

(3AA)   Body scanning equipment of a kind that has not previously been used for the screening of a person must not be used for the screening of a person unless equipment of that kind has been:

  (a)   tested for compliance with health standards prescribed by the regulations; and

  (b)   found to comply with those standards.

(3AB)   Body scanning equipment that uses ionising backscatter x-ray technology must not be used for the screening of a person other than in exceptional circumstances. If such equipment is to be used for the screening of a person, the regulations must set out what those exceptional circumstances are.

I will first deal with the first section, 3AA. In summary, this is that the government should ensure that the screening technology is thoroughly tested for compliance with health regulations. Interestingly, this was another of the Senate committee's recommendations that the government should ensure that all screening technology is thoroughly tested for compliance with health regulations—that was recommendation 3 from the inquiry.

The health concerns of this technology are very significant for frequent flyers, workers at airports, cabin crews and airline pilots. It is an issue that was also taken up strongly in the Australian Airline Pilots' Association's submission, which had a lot of useful information in it. They argued that for a large percentage of the travelling public, understandably, there would be minimal exposure to body scanning equipment and therefore minimal health risks; however, the health risk is exacerbated for that group that I have just mentioned: people who are working at airports and frequent flyers. These people, they state, could have higher exposure rates of between 200 and 400 times per year and possibly significantly higher. Crews have to change between aircraft, terminals, flights or domestic/international operations and could be screened multiple times during a single-duty period.

They also went on to argue that pilots and cabin crew should not be subject to body scanning as they have already undergone rigorous security assessments and have been issued with airport security identity cards. Pilots and cabin crew have these, and they argue that they should be entitled to work in and around aircraft as part of their normal duties, obviously with the identification being shown as required. Those provisions surely should be taken into account.

Considering we are dealing with a very important health issue, I would like to ask the minister why they did not accept those recommendations, considering again, Minister Albanese, in that comment that I shared with members earlier from 2010, said there would be consultation on this very issue of the health impacts. What was the response to that recommendation?