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

I seek leave to move Greens amendments (1) and (3) together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The advice is that you should move only amendment (1). You can speak to them both, but we will put (1) and (3) separately.

Thank you for your advice, Chair. I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7257:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 18), at the end of subsection 41A(2), add:

  ; or (c)   the procedure is a body scan and, as an alternative, the person chooses to undergo afrisk search.

The essence of this amendment is that airline passengers who are randomly selected for a body scan would be able to opt out and opt for an alternative screening method without having to provide any reasons, such as a medical certificate, a letter from a doctor or any other justification of their physical ability. The law currently allows for a person to choose a frisk search over another screening procedure, such as a body scan. It is worth remembering what the current law states:

If a person chooses to undergo a frisk search as an alternative to another screening procedure, a screening officer may frisk search the person to the extent necessary to screen the person properly.

That is what we could be about to lose. This is an important privacy provision, and it should be kept in the bill. It is relevant to repeat what Minister Albanese said in an interview on 9 February 2010. He stated:

… we'll be having full consultation and involvement with the Privacy Commissioner, with other organisations … including looking at health issues…

He did go on to say:

But we have a responsibility to use the best technology available.

But, as I said, he spoke about full consultation around the issue of privacy.

It is also interesting to look at the recommendations that came from the Senate committee inquiry. Yes, it was rushed, but the inquiry, made up of many senators here from the various parties, did consider the 16 submissions that came forward, heard from some witnesses and came forward with recommendations, including the important recommendation 1, which states:

The committee recommends that the use of frisk searches continue to be an alternative screening procedure at Australian international airports and, accordingly, that the bill not repeal section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004.

Minister Carr, this recommendation was not accepted. Could you explain why that was the case, considering Minister Albanese gave a commitment that there would be consultation? Why wasn't this opt-out provision allowed to stand?