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

I thank the minister for again making a statement on the important issues of aviation security and, in particular, the battle against terrorism in our skies. It is important in this context, since so much of terrorism is international in its context, that countries get together from time to time to talk about the way in which they can cooperate to address this menace. I had the privilege of attending a similar conference in my time as minister, also in Japan—in fact, I commend Japan on the leadership role that it is taking in endeavouring to develop an international consensus on some of these important issues.

Ever since the tragic events of September 11 2001, the horror of terrorism has been with us, and it is a constant concern to people who need to travel by air in the course of their business or just to enjoy a holiday or the company of their friends. The recent Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day underlined again the dangers of complacency and the need for greater security for passengers, airlines and airports. It also underlined the fact that no measures can of themselves provide a complete guarantee. This particular incident occurred in spite of a range of measures that were put in place and from an airport that was considered to have a very high degree of security awareness.

So there has been a significant change in our approach to these issues, as there ought to be. The measures began right after September 11, with initiatives from the previous government like strengthening the cockpit doors on all aircraft with 30 or more seats. In a sense, while it is almost a last line of defence, it was perhaps the most important of the initiatives. There has also been a lot of work done on tightening passenger carry-on baggage screening at all airports with jet operations, introducing explosive trace detection at domestic and international screening airports and providing additional Australian Protective Service officers at airports around Australia and armed air security officers on domestic flights and certain international flights.

Well ahead of the International Civil Aviation Organisation deadline, we introduced 100 per cent checked bag screening for all international services. Between 2001 and 2007, about $500 million was spent by the government on aviation security, with $82 million specifically towards regional aviation. Of course, the government’s contribution was only a part of it. The airlines themselves and other people involved in the transport sector all had to wear a cost, as did the travelling public. While the travelling public have been annoyed from time to time about inconvenience and seeming inconsistency, there has generally been a good spirit, a high degree of patience and, I think, an appreciation that we have all had to accept some compromises to our free lifestyle in this country to make sure that we remain safe.

I note that the minister made reference to a number of new initiatives that the incoming Labor government has taken, expanding the cooperative inspections and security assessments at last ports of call. I think that is a particularly important initiative. I am not quite sure how many countries were present at this particular conference; it said 18, although there are only 15 on the list. But, of those 15, 11 have flights directly to Australia. In other words, we are very interested in the fact that their standards are appropriate, because if any incidents can be intercepted at the point of boarding then that means they are not transported to Australia. Of course, Australians are also likely to be on those flights, so we have a particular interest in making sure that the safety and security measures that are undertaken are strong and firm. Indeed, some of the countries that have regular flights to Australia, where that is the last point of embarkation before arriving in Australia, are areas where terrorism and the risk of terrorism are very real. So I think the work that Australians have done in helping to improve the security systems in other countries is perhaps one of the most important things that we as a country have done to help keep our skies safe. I welcome the fact that the government intends to further that work and, indeed, place Office of Transport Security people at overseas ports.

There are to be some increased policing and strengthened security procedures at airports. Body scanners will be introduced progressively at screening points servicing international passengers by early next year. The minister made a couple of comments about the right balance between safety and privacy. I think the introduction of these body scanners does raise significant privacy issues. As I have said publicly, we have all accepted some compromise to our privacy in the interests of security, and we live with that. This is a significant further step, and the government will need to be able to persuade the public that this is an invasion of privacy that is worth the risk.

I know that there is talk of machines that are supposed to no longer expose the naked body. I think, Minister—if I may make a very practical suggestion—that for this measure to win community support the public are going to need to be persuaded about that fact. I would encourage you to put on display some machines so that people can see what is happening—perhaps bring one into Parliament House so members of parliament can say they have seen this machine and they are satisfied that privacy issues are not compromised—because, unless the public are happy and relaxed about it, there will be issues and resistance to a measure of this nature. I think the public are satisfied that we need to do whatever we need to do to avoid risks to safety in the air, but we also need to be convinced that this is not an unnecessary breach of privacy. So that is a practical suggestion by way of implementing it so that the public will be as accepting of this new step in technology as they have been of some of the previous initiatives.

I note that the minister referred again to the extension of the screening measures to approximately 20 airports in regional Australia that have flights by Q400 aircraft. This is a significant step forward and it raises some quite important issues. There is no evidence anywhere around the world of a Q400 sized aircraft being involved in a terrorism incident. In other words, there is no history. The question is: is there a risk? I suppose there is a risk with a Cessna 172 as well—how do we make the judgment as to what that risk actually is? My concern about it is the huge cost that is going to be imposed upon regional airports as a result of this initiative. I welcome the fact that the government is going to provide $32 million to assist with the purchase of necessary equipment, but there is no way in the world that is going to meet anything like the full cost.

Some airports, in fact most of these 20, will have to be completely rebuilt because there is no capacity at most of these regional airports—the ones that are going to come under these new arrangements—at this stage to separate and screen passengers from other passengers. There is no secure area to deal with the baggage and, in fact, some of these airports are little more than an old World War II demountable or just a shed. In some regional communities people actually wait outside under a tree for the aircraft to arrive. That will simply not be acceptable under the new arrangements.

There are a number of airports, and I have mentioned some of these like Blackall, Barcaldine and Blackwater, where the Q400s are going to come, or in some cases are already landing, as part of a triangle service with a larger airport. In some cases they only have two or three services a week and carry up to something like 50 passengers a week, and you simply cannot justify a multimillion dollar terminal building for 50 passengers a week. Even if the government gives them free terminal buildings, they have still got the operational costs: five or six people to run the X-ray equipment, the explosives detection devices and of course the checking of the baggage that is going onboard the aircraft. So you are going to have to put on a group of six to eight people every time the flight arrives. Under the government’s new industrial relations requirements one would imagine it will take four hours time to load 10 or 12 passengers. If this cost is to be recovered you are looking at hundreds of dollars per passenger. These services are just not sufficiently viable to be able to meet those kinds of costs.

Again, if the government want to introduce this measure in every airport that has a Q400 landing on regular passenger transport services, they will need to look at innovative ways to deal with it. Maybe there is going to have to be some concessions for these airports where there are just small numbers of passengers boarding, or a look at arrangements where perhaps just the last point of call before departure to a capital city is where the inspections occur. At this stage, the amount of money provided will not meet the cost that these small regional airports are going to have to meet. In fact, the cost of actually operating the services will be beyond the viability of those services.

There will also be capital costs required at the capital city airports because at this stage the aircraft—the Q300, the Dash 8 200s and the Q400s—all arrive in the same lounges. They are going to have to be separated because some of them will be clean and others will be unsecured passengers, so there is going to be significant investment also required at our capital city airports to meet these new requirements. It is a matter always of balancing what is affordable with what will deliver the very best results.

Then you consider that the government, at the same time as it is imposing these new requirements, is actually making a range of significant cuts in areas of aviation security. For instance the AFP report on the conference that the minister attended said that there were calls at the conference for more to be done on sky marshals, or air security officers, as we have named them. That was not mentioned in the minister’s statement but the news reports of the conference did refer to it. The government has provided no money in the future for the sky marshals program, and we do not know whether it even exists now or whether it is just being quietly wound down. But there has been no commitment to the sky marshals program.

The government have cut $58 million out of the Customs program, which means that 4.7 million fewer consignments arriving in Australia by air are being inspected by Customs officers than was the case previously, and 125 quarantine officers have been sacked. All of these sorts of things demonstrate that on one hand the government are talking about tougher security but on the other hand they are cutting back on some of the most important initiatives: inspecting arriving cargo, which is not happening, and the issues in relation to the sky marshals program being wound back—those sorts of things have got to be addressed if the government wants to be taken seriously on security issues.

See this speech in context