Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So I do not have to repeat myself, I will speak to both Greens amendments (1) and (3), as the thrust of both is the opting-out provisions. This amendment seeks to retain the frisk search as an alternative screening procedure at international airports. I am advised that we want to emphasise that this is for international travellers. This is not for every domestic traveller; it is for international travellers. In response to the amendment specifically, I would like to assure members of the Senate that frisk searches will continue as an alternative screening procedure for any passenger who has a legitimate reason for why they cannot be screened with the new technology. Currently, passengers who are unable to pass through a walk-through metal detector because they have a pacemaker or are confined to a wheelchair, for instance, are able to have alternative security arrangements made.

These arrangements will not change with the introduction of body scanners. If a passenger is selected for a body scan and they have a medical or physical reason that prevents them from being scanned, they will be screened using a frisk search. However, the amendment bill will mean that a person selected for a body scan who does not have a legitimate reason why they cannot be screened by a body scanner will not have the option of choosing to undergo a frisk search instead. The reason for this is that the style of frisk search currently used at Australian airports simply cannot provide the same security outcome that the body scanners can. The only method of screening that could provide a similar security outcome to that of a body scanner is the type of invasive body search that is conducted overseas. The government remains resolute in not introducing invasive body searches as part of our airport security arrangements. As such, section 95A must be removed in order to close this loophole in which an individual with an intent to cause unlawful interference with aviation may opt out of the body scan and undergo a less comprehensive screening measure in order to avoid detection.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be supporting this. Having just come back from overseas, I have to be honest and say that the units that are used are far less confronting and invasive than having to be searched. At one stage I had to go through the indignity of the search and, to be honest, I would much prefer to stand in the booth.

The reason that everybody is going down this path is that some very bad people decided to fly a plane into a building and then to fly another plane into another building. They persisted in that, with breaches right up until Christmas Day in 2009. People have now gone to the next stage and are trying to take different liquids in different forms onto planes so as to create combustible materials. The result of this is that people die. Also, a pervasive sense of unease has come over international travel. People are not doing this because they want to; they are doing it because of the public demands that safety be paramount. If these issues were not there, we would not even need metal detectors, and there was a stage where we did not have them. This has been brought about because of the global circumstances in which we unfortunately live.

As stated, if there is a clear medical reason why someone cannot go through the scanner, they still are able to be searched. But I think this will become part and parcel of international travel, just as metal detectors are. We come into this building every day and we go through a form of security. If we had talked to people about it 10 to 15 years ago, they would not have comprehended it, but nobody actually blinks an eye at it now. We have to make sure that our duty is, first and foremost—as onerous as it may be in some instances—to the protection and security of the Australian travelling public and, second, to be part of the international effort in making sure we make the confines in which terrorists operate as narrow as possible and as marginal as possible.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for her question. I can indicate that the government has considered these alternatives and has rejected the approach that is being taken. I would ask you to consider the changes that have occurred in the Australian aviation industry in recent years and, in fact, in the international aviation industry. You would have to agree that there has been a very, very substantial response and success in securing the safety of the Australian and international aviation industries from attacks by terrorists. That is something I think we would all applaud. There is a basic civil and human right to be able to get on a plane and not be blown up. Frankly, 13 million Australians would look to that right to be enforced by governments and they would look to this parliament to enforce that right.

As to alternatives, it is suggested that we should look to the American airline system as an alternative to ours. It is the sort of thing people talk about until they actually experience the American airline system. I have found that people who complain about Qantas service do so until such time as they have experienced the American airline system. The US frisk searches in particular are notorious—absolutely notorious, Senator—for being very intrusive. I am advised that the American regulations actually require 'the running of the hand up the inside leg to the point of resistance'. That is the method by which they establish the security of their airline system. If you think that is an improvement, I suggest it is not an approach that the government could support.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce has indicated that the coalition will not be supporting this, and of course I support that position. I acknowledge that we are talking about international travel, but I say to the mover of the amendment that this is the first step. Perhaps it would lead to this occurring domestically. Could you then think what this might do to an airport like Horn Island in the Torres Strait? Perhaps Horn Island might even be considered an international airport; everyone is aware that a lot of PNG nationals come down through the Torres Strait from PNG, get on a plane in Cairns and travel elsewhere in Australia. Should it be introduced domestically, it is a cost that will be imposed on a small airport like Horn Island, run by the Torres Shire Council, which is struggling to even cope with the cost of installing the screening facility.

I emphasise to the minister that in my speech I did acknowledge that the government had funded, according to my figures, $1.338 million from various sources, but the total cost is $2.48 million. So there is a shortfall of $1.14-odd million that the Torres council has to try and find. It has already increased the passenger movement charge from $27.50 by another $30 per head. It just means that the costs of living in this remote part of Australia are going to be exacerbated. I acknowledged what your government and other governments have provided to the Torres Strait, but in relation to this particular facility there is this shortfall that the council, quite frankly, has no idea how it is going to fund.

In joining my colleague Senator Joyce in opposing this amendment, I repeat: if this were made mandatory around airports in Australia, how would an airport like Horn Island cope if every second passenger opted to have a frisk search instead of walking through the screening apparatus? It is just an additional burden. If Senator Rhiannon were ever successful in getting this implemented, I would hope that she would add as a rider to any implementation of a new system or arrangement that the additional costs involved in doing this be borne by the taxpayers as a whole rather than, in the case of Horn Island, by a very small group of people who are simply unable to afford even the screening facility that they are required implement now.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has considered this approach. There has been extensive consultation, and the result of that consultation has meant that the government has chosen an alternative approach. It has considered these recommendations and rejected them. In terms of the specifics of this amendment, I will just indicate the government's attitude to these matters. I also understand that amendment (3) will be subsequently put and I have already indicated the government's opposition to it—or it is not proceeding?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have dealt with it.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amendment (3)?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Yes.

The amendment requires that all body scanning equipment be tested for compliance with health standards prescribed by regulations. That might sound reasonable enough on the surface of it and it should apply to health regulations. The amendment in fact is redundant, because that is exactly what this bill does: all screening equipment used in Australian airports must of course comply with Commonwealth and state and territory laws and regulations.

ARPANSA, the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration have each given consideration to the introduction of the millimetre-wave body scanners. The only health related regulation that applies to the use of these devices is the ARPANSA standard 'Maximum exposure levels to radiofrequency fields—3 kHz to 300 gHz'. This is the amount of energy that is emitted by the millimetre-wave body scanner during a scan, which of course I might remind senators is thousands of times lower than the maximum permissible exposure level for the public, which is outlined in the ARPANSA standard itself. So it is simply unnecessary to replicate in the Aviation Transport Security Act a requirement to meet the standard that already exists.

I wish to turn to the additional matter that is being raised through these amendments—that is amendment (2)(3AB), the particular types of technology that are being sought to be deployed. This amendment would seek to limit the use of ionising backscatter X-ray equipment for security screening to certain, clearly defined and exceptional circumstances. The government's view on this matter is that we can assure members of this chamber that the government has no intention of introducing body scanners that use ionising X-ray technology for aviation security screening.

The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004, in any event, is not the appropriate place for regulations of this type on the use of radiation technology. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 exists to protect the health and safety of people from the harmful effects of radiation. The Australian Radiation and Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency is charged with the responsibility of administering that act. Furthermore, each state and territory has its own legislation with regard to radiation protection so that any equipment that uses ionising radiation must be licensed for operation by either ARPANSA or the appropriate state and territory radiation authority.

ARPANSA, in connection with the state and territory radiation regulators, has formal mechanisms in place to ensure that any proposal to use ionising radiation on humans for non-medical purposes is fully justified before a licence is issued. The justification process is in fact rigorous and takes into account consideration of the benefits of the proposed activity versus the potential risks to human health. The justification is also assessed based on whether the same outcome can be achieved by an alternative form of technology. It is the government's view that the current radiation protection regulatory framework is robust, and it is there to ensure that the only equipment that meets the highest health and safety standards is in fact introduced. As such, any restriction of the type that is being proposed in this amendment would be unnecessary.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be supporting this. We understand the concerns that Senator Rhiannon alluded to, but we believe they have been more than dealt with as stated by the minister. I also note that the wave scans are within the limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and that an assessment by the US Transportation Security Administration confirms the technology emits 10,000 times less radiofrequency than the average mobile phone call. So, unless you are going to take up residence in the booth and raise a family, you should be pretty right.

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

Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. But, again, I do not think it is going to give confidence to those who work regularly at airports who will be subject many times to this machinery and therefore to the potential radiation. While you have said they comply with health standards, what you have not spelled out and what I understand is a failure here is the cumulative impacts on people who are regularly being exposed to this form of screening. This has not been assessed. I think there has been limited work done on that. That is why I would ask you to provide more information on that specific point.

I take you back to the submission that came from the pilots association. They made the point that their people could be exposed to this form of screening 200 times or 400 times, or maybe even more, each year. They said that sometimes just on one shift people moving around the airport could be exposed to this screening many times.

It is serious. It clearly needs to be given more serious consideration. My understanding is that the health standards have not looked at that problem of the cumulative impact. Could you provide information on what work has been done in this area, please?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice that I have been provided with says that, firstly, in terms of the nonionised radiation, there is no evidence of cumulative effects. In regard to the mechanism by which the standards are set, ARPANSA takes these questions into consideration. There are regulations that meet those standards. In terms of any additional material you are seeking as to the details of research projects on this, we will have to take that on notice.

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

Thank you. Minister, I would be interested especially in the report that states that there are no cumulative impacts. If you could take it on notice to supply that report as well, please.

I want to move on to 3AB, and ask the minister some questions about that. I am interested that the government says it has no intention of introducing the ionising radiation form of screening—and Senator Carr has reiterated this point that Minister Albanese has made on a number of occasions. If that is the case, why don't you support a ban on the use of ionising backscatter radiation equipment?

The European Union has banned the use of such scanners because of possible health risks. This is the opportunity to get it right, to get it into law and to get the ban in place. Backscatter scanners continue to be used in the US, but there at least passengers have the right to request a frisk search as an alternative.

We have a ban in place in the European Union, and here the government is leaving the door open to this very dangerous technology being introduced. Again, that was a recommendation that came from the Australian pilots association. I would ask the minister what the government's response is to that recommendation and why the ban has not been included.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7257 be agreed to.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.