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

Air travel safety clearly is a priority, and we have the responsibility to get that right. So many of the authorities in this area have identified what they often call a layered approach. One of the Greens' concerns is that, because of the way this bill is constructed, it can result in a false sense of security by putting so much emphasis on these full body scanners.

I note that Senator Joyce, both in his contribution to the bill and in his comments now, referred to his overseas visit. I understand that he went to the United States, but what he failed to share with us is that in the United States, as in Canada and in the Netherlands, they do use body scanners but they allow people to opt out in favour of a frisk search. So, again, that privacy issue is respected. They get the balance right and it certainly addresses some of the points that the minister made.

There has been a change here. It is correct, as the minister said, that people can request a frisk search, but they have to provide proof—they have to explain their circumstances. I put to my colleagues in this place the very unpleasant position that that can put many people in—people who may have a prosthetic body part for some reason. They would then have to explain that to a stranger, to a security person. I think that is wrong. I think there is a way that we can manage this—that is, by retaining section 95A. I want to ask the minister: did you consider recommendation 1 set out in the report of the inquiry? There was also a recommendation from the Australian Airline Pilots' Association along similar lines. Clearly they have a lot of experience in this area and have a lot vested in it, considering the day-to-day involvement of their members. I am interested in whether the government considered their recommendation:

That the Australian Government follow the lead of its counterparts in the United States of America and Europe and direct that screening of passengers using any active body scanning technology be conducted on a totally voluntary basis.

Were those two recommendations considered? If they were, why were they not acted on? If they were not considered, why was that?