Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to this bill, which in some respects is not particularly important but in other respects is quite important. This Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 will have implications for a lot of us, especially those who travel overseas in the future. Perhaps in time it may have implications for domestic travel, although that is not the intention at present.

We have had brought home to us very vividly in the last couple of days, with the death of the alleged bomber at Lockerbie, what an explosion on an aircraft can do and what dreadful mayhem it can create in the loss of life and property when a plane comes out of the sky. It is just horrendous, the death and destruction that can ensue. We saw this also with the aircraft going into the World Trade Centre and crashing into the Pentagon in the 9/11 circumstances. There have been other instances across the world, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, where aircraft have been blown up, and that has been going on right back to the Second World War. But with the fragile peace in the Middle East and the number of terrorists who are abroad at present, it is a time when we must be ever vigilant.

In addition to those horrific circumstances like Lockerbie and 9/11, we have also had some near misses where people have come onto aircraft with shoes full of explosives. The incident that, more than any other, triggered this bill was a flight on Christmas Day 2009 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Northwest Airlines flight 253, where one passenger had part of the explosive cocktail in his underwear; a frightening circumstance that he would blow himself and everyone else on the plane to bits. Luckily, he did not get the opportunity to trigger that dreadful cocktail. The point was that the product he was carrying on him was not detectable through a metal scanner. Indeed, whether you have a powder or a gel, if it is a form of explosive cocktail then it needs to be detected. This set the minds of the world's security people on edge and we have now come up with new forms of scanners. The Australian government, through this legislation, will introduce scanning initially to our international airports.

The coalition does not oppose the bill and we accept in a bipartisan spirit that the enhancement of national security is a duty for all of us. However, we recognise there are people with genuine concerns—some about health and some about privacy. These concerns led to the government conducting an inquiry through the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, of which I am the deputy chair, and were addressed. It was a very interesting inquiry—not a particularly long one, but certainly a very interesting one.

The first concern was the health aspect. This new form of scanner is different from the metal scanner we are all used to at airports where you walk through and lights are triggered at your feet, legs, hips, waist and upper body and a signal goes off that you do not have metal on you. As I said, if you had a powder or a gel, it probably would not be detected. With the new scanners, you go into a tiny cylindrical room about the size of a telephone box and two masts with antennas on them revolve around you for a period of just two seconds. They transmit a signal that is returned to the antenna and it forms a 3D image. As it comes off your body surface or the surface of any other things you might be carrying, this triggers different light patterns on a generic picture. From that, you can tell whether people have got dangerous materials on them.

One issue that occurred to me before we even got to these new scanners is that my wife has got a hardened plastic knife at home—not that I fear my wife with a knife; I do not—for cutting vegetables. It is incredibly sharp and it is as long as a normal carving knife. I have often wondered whether it would be detectable if someone had one of those down the leg of their pants or under their skirt. But these hardened plastic knives would certainly be detectable under this type of operation.

We had one of these scanners in Parliament House, up on the first floor, and members of the committee, ministerial staff and others were allowed to see this thing and experience it. I went into the scanner and I took off certain items of metal and left other ones on. It certainly picked up all these bits of metal I was carrying. In fact, I thought I had emptied my left pocket and there was a 10c piece in it. That 10c piece came up on the image loud and clear. In the words of Oliver Goldsmith's poem 'fools, who came to scoff, remained to pray'. There is no doubt that this technology will detect not only metal but other objects, and that makes security when we travel in aircraft that much better for all of us.

The other worry lots of people had was about privacy. I think people are entitled to privacy. When you go through one of these walk-through metal scanners, the only other way they can check whether you are carrying some other product is to either strip search or, rather intrusively, frisk you. No-one likes that. People quite rightly object. When the idea of something that could, so to speak, look right through you came on the market, a lot of people had a certain reluctance to participate. They were diffident about it. Probably one of the reasons for that was that an earlier model—not of this exact same technology but of similar technology—allowed anatomical differences in the male and female body to be seen on the screen. A lot of people took objection to that, and perhaps rightly so. Even though the people who were doing the screening were to be in a booth, that did cause some problems. But this new model that we saw here in Parliament House makes a generic figure. There are no anatomical distinctions between these figures. They are not exactly stick figures—they are more bulky than that—but there is no differentiation between male and female, for example. The upper torso, lower torso, legs, arms and head are quite clearly evident, but only to that extent. As the signal comes back from the antenna it is converted into a 3D image and superimposed upon this generic figure which is roughly the size of the person who has gone through the scanning machine. And let me tell you that every bit of metal on you shows up, and I am sure that every bit of plastic or powder or gel that does not come from the normal reaction to your body will also show up on that screen.

I think people need to accept that. Some people said they wanted to have an opt-out provision and to be frisked. I do not think that is necessary. There is no intrusion into people's personal privacy in the strict sense of the word. I think we are going to follow the UK system, where if you are asked to go through the scanner and you do not then you do not go into the secure area of the airport, plain and simple—no fights, no tantrums, you just do not get in.

As I said earlier, some people are concerned about the irradiation factor. We called in and took evidence from a whole range of people and agencies such as ARPANSA, the Department of Health and Ageing, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the radiation regulators in the states and territories. Between them, they issued a health and safety information sheet which said:

There is no evidence to suggest that millimetre-wave body scanners, or other devices in this frequency and at the power density used by scanners, are a health risk for the travelling public or the operators.

I think that is a pretty reasonable assessment of it.

This will enhance safety at Australian airports for people travelling overseas, initially. I personally would not mind if it were extended to domestic flights, but that is not the intention at this stage. I think we cannot be too vigilant about things like this. All these added moves make our lives safer, make our travel more secure and remove anxieties. We have all seen what happens on an aircraft when a gas bottle explodes—something as innocent as that—and the damage that caused to the aircraft. Just imagine if it had been a proper explosive device and what that might have done to that aircraft. We should never put ourselves in that position. We should not suborn ourselves to people who carry explosives in their shoes or in their underwear. We should remove all those people from world travel so that intercourse between the nations of the world can continue freely and without any intrusion that might impact on our safety.

The committee unanimously supported the recommendation made following its inquiry, and that recommendation was that the legislation should be endorsed. I, for one, strongly endorse the legislation.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on this bill before the House today, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, which will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. I thank the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, for his contribution and the bipartisan support for this very important bill to improve our aviation security. I acknowledge the points he made in relation to his concerns and the concerns shared by all of us in the House about making sure we increase our aviation security measures.

The amendments contained in this bill will support the upcoming introduction of body scanners at Australian international airports. The use of body scanners is required to ensure that Australian travellers, crew and everyone involved with aircraft travel are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism. This is a very important and major step in ensuring the safety of all people travelling through our international airports for whatever reason, for tourism, for trade. We are seeing a massive increase in international air travel and this is a very important step to meet the increased security needs within the aviation environment.

The introduction of these body scanners will bring Australia into line with countries such as the USA, Canada, the UK and the Netherlands, so it is very important that we are making this improvement. Many speakers have talked about why such an improvement is necessary. It is vitally important when we look at tackling aviation terrorism and the threat it brings. As we know, terrorism has become the defining issue of the first decade of the 21st century, with the 9-11 aeroplane attacks acknowledged as the most destructive, horrific terrorist attacks in history.

Since that time Australia's aviation security regime has been significantly strengthened. However, the aviation sector must remain vigilant against the threat of any potential terrorist attack and that is why improvements such as this measure are vitally important. Many speakers have talked about the situation in 2009 where a passenger on a US flight between Amsterdam and Detroit concealed an explosive device in his underwear and passed through aviation security screening with that device undetected on his person. This event highlighted the vulnerability in global aviation security screening practices, including in Australia. It certainly made many countries aware of the need for increased security. In response to this incident, the government announced a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security. So, accepting that the aviation security environment has significantly evolved in the last decade and will continue to do so, the bill before the House today continues the government's commitment to ensuring that Australian airports are afforded the highest level of protection against the threat of aviation terrorism.

The bill will also provide flexibility for future governments to introduce new screening tools as technologies improve, ensuring that technologies will be used to achieve the maximum security outcome whilst also acknowledging and making sure that there is minimal impact on passenger movements as much as possible to have that balance right. We obviously have to be very mindful of making sure that we keep our security commitment at a very strong level and ensuring as best we can the free flow of passengers through our international terminals. I think that the majority of people do acknowledge the importance of having increased security measures and appreciate how absolutely vital they are in today's environment.

The bill states that a person has consented to any screening procedure at the screening point and must receive clearance in order to board an aircraft or to enter an area of a security controlled airport. Secondly, it provides for the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to deal with any person that must not pass through a screening point. Thirdly, it lists, but does not limit, the types of equipment that may be used for security screening purposes. This includes metal detection, explosive trace detection and active millimetre-wave body scanning equipment. If a body scanner is used for the screening of a person, the image must only be a generic body, gender-neutral, and must not identify that person. Fourthly, the bill repeals section 95A of the act. Very importantly, the bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

As I stated earlier and as many other speakers have spoken about, passenger screening is a critical component of any aviation security system operating internationally today. Section 41 of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 provides the legislative framework requiring a person to be screened when boarding an aircraft or entering an area or zone within a security controlled airport. Screening is conducted by authorised screening officers who inspect individuals and their property to deter and prevent the carriage of prohibited items and weapons that are considered to be a threat to an aircraft.

Screening can entail using X-ray machines, walk-through and hand-held metal detection devices and random and continuous explosive-trace detection devices on passengers and carry-on bags and physical searches as required. The bill will enable the removal of section 95A of the act, meaning that an individual will no longer be able to choose a frisk search over another screening procedure, so it is very important that we have that removal and that change there.

In order to ensure the travelling public is safe, the prohibited items that Australian aviation screening seeks to identify has evolved from simply attempting to detect metallic weapons to a newer environment that presents a range of sophisticated threats that our screening regime must be capable of detecting. Unfortunately, where we have people finding new and advanced ways to attempt to get these items onto our aircraft we do have to make sure that our security systems are evolving as well to be able to detect them at a much greater rate.

This is where the use of body scanning technologies can play a very significant role in Australia's aviation security regime. Body scanners have the ability to detect and pinpoint the location of both metallic and non-metallic items concealed within or underneath a person's clothing. Indeed, body scanners offer the greatest chance of detection, as existing screening technology used in Australia is incapable of detecting many of the new-generation threats. There is currently no alternative method of passenger screening available today that can really deliver an equivalent security outcome to a body scanner. That is why it is very important that we do have that in place.

We are also very mindful and aware of an individual's privacy. We have carefully considered the introduction of body scanners and the impact on the travelling public's privacy and we are committed to the introduction of body scanners that have a range of privacy enhancements. We understand how important that is. The automatic threat recognition technology is one of the most important of these. This technology displays areas of concern on a generic human representation which is the same for all passengers. It is very important that the point be made clear that it is the same. The technology removes the need for a human operator to look at raw or detailed images and therefore maintains the privacy and modesty of all individuals. In addition, body scanners introduced in Australia will not be capable of storing or transmitting any information or data. There has also been extensive consultation to ensure that body scanners meet health and safety requirements. The ProVision millimetre-wave body scanner will be introduced, being the only one that currently meets the government's requirements.

Also it is important to note that the introduction of body scanners will not interfere with the rights of people to wear traditional, religious or cultural attire. As I said before, when it comes to scanning there are no defining characteristics and the operator is not given any raw images but, rather, stick figures that represent only a male or a female image. It is very important that we are of that.

Body screening will also protect a passenger's modesty. Full body frisking—if we look at the comparison—can include a full and thorough search of the entire body and may even require the removal of some clothing. When you look at that differentiation, it is unlikely that a passenger selected for screening would opt for a full body frisk rather than body screening.

The government does understand that some screening technologies, including body scanners, may not be suitable for all individuals due to special circumstances—for example, in light of an individual's disabilities or other medical conditions. We are very much aware of that. Individuals who cannot undergo certain screening procedures due to physical or medical conditions will be screened by alternative methods suited to their circumstances, and it is very important that we address all those privacy concerns that have been raised.

It is important that we take this added step in terms of body scanners to ensure the safety and security of our international airports, particularly when we look at the massive rise in international air travel and what it means for our country in tourism and trade and how it is such a strong economic driver. But at the same time we have to be very mindful of ensuring that we have very strict and very thorough security regimes in place. I think most travellers appreciate and understand the necessity of having such levels of security, the reasons they need to be increased and why having body scanners is so vitally important.

When we look at the role of international airports we can see how important they are as economic drivers. I certainly see that in my electorate on the North Coast of New South Wales. Indeed, we have the Gold Coast airport, which crosses Commonwealth land between Queensland and New South Wales. It is an expanding airport and, in terms of being an economic driver for northern New South Wales and also for South-East Queensland, it is vitally important. We have seen an increase in international travel with visitors coming to all parts of our region and, of course, that brings massive economic benefits, not just the increases in jobs at the airport itself but in the surrounding areas in tourism and retail. So I certainly understand firsthand the importance of international air travel and also the role that airports play within our communities.

From my background in policing, I have a strong understanding and appreciation of the need for enhanced security systems, particularly in environments where we have to be always very vigilant. Looking at the terrorist activities in the past, we need to be always very concerned that we are acting in the best interests of all people who are travelling through our international airports and providing the highest amount of protection that we possibly can. That is why this government is very committed to making sure that we do have body scanners at our international airports. We want to make sure that we have a very robust and effective aviation security screening regime and that is why we are introducing this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The tragic events of 11 September 2001 changed the world forever. After 9/11 questions were understandably asked about and criticism levelled at the effectiveness of security at the time. All 19 hijackers from the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda involved in those dreadful suicide attacks against America and against freedom using four hijacked passenger jets were able to pass existing checkpoints and board the aircraft. Since the attacks, in which 2,996 lives were lost and 6,000 people were injured, security at many airports worldwide has been considerably strengthened.

The legislation before the House, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, implements several amendments to facilitate the introduction of body scanners at international airports in Australia. It would be reasonable to say there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with some of what this bill proposes, even though all would agree with the tenet of the legislation and what it proposes to achieve or, rather, what it aims to avoid. No-one in their right mind wants a repeat of 9/11 and those awful images burned into the conscience of a bereaved world. To do all we can to ensure such an act of mass murder does not happen again will require some inconvenience, some level of unwanted intrusion.

Body scanning screening security will bother those subjected to it. It will put people out. It will aggravate and annoy them, even infuriate some. But this must be done for the greater good of a society in which people expect to be able to board planes without fear of bad and mad terrorists perpetrating their wickedness on the world.

In the bill's amendments, section 41A is inserted. It assumes consent for any screening procedure, except for a frisk search, at a screening point unless the person expressly refuses consent. Section 44 is amended to allow the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to handle people unable to pass through a screening point. Sections 44(3), 44(3A) and 44(3B) are inserted to list but not restrict the types of equipment which can be used for screening and specify that where body scanning equipment is used the image generated must be gender-neutral and non-identifiable. That is of the utmost importance for people and their privacy. The amendments repeal section 95A, which allows a person to choose a frisk search over another screening procedure.

Why has all of this become necessary? On Christmas Day 2009, a 23-year-old Nigerian Islamist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to detonate plastic explosives sewn to his underwear on Northwest Airlines flight NW253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. There were 290 passengers onboard—innocent people for whom the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who claimed to have organised the attack and supplied the would-be bomber with the improvised explosive device, had absolutely no regard. Abdulmutallab had successfully concealed the bomb in his underwear through security screening in Yemen and Amsterdam. It went undetected because it did not contain metallic elements. The potentially deadly bomb failed to detonate, instead catching fire and making popping noises, at which point Abdulmutallab was tackled, restrained and handcuffed while the pilot safely landed the plane. In response to what could have been a shocking tragedy, the United States increased the installation and use of full-body scanners in many of its major airports. The scanners are designed to be able to detect bombs under clothing, and 11 airports, including O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, began to receive the machines in March 2010.

Here in Australia, the government announced a package of measures to heighten aviation security on 9 February 2010. This announcement committed $200 million for new security technologies, increased policing at airports, improved security procedures and bolstered international cooperation. The package included $28.5 million for optimal technologies, including body scanners. The introduction of body scanners is supported by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport's Office of Transport Security. This technology is already used in Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications tabled its report about this bill on 9 May 2012, recommending unanimously that this legislation be passed. A Senate inquiry is underway and scheduled to report next Wednesday.

Non-metallic explosives still pose a very real and deadly threat to safe air travel as shown by the fact that earlier this month an upgraded version of the underwear bomb was seized by the Central Intelligence Agency. Unfortunately, there are people in this world whose hatred for the Western way of life, fuelled by religious and ethnic intolerance, puts them on a suicidal path of mass destruction. These people must be stopped. They must be locked away. If installing body scanners at international airports in Australia means limiting the risk of terrorism then that is a positive measure, a good thing. Too many families—too many Australian parents—today mourn loved ones lost because of terrorism. Young Riverina men David Mavroudis, Clint Thompson and Shane Walsh Till were among 88 Australians killed in the Bali bombing on 12 October 2002. Shane was a mate of mine. This was not a plane hijacking or in-flight bomb attack but nevertheless an act of barbarism which stuck at the heart of our peace-loving way of life. It was a grim reminder of how vigilant we must be in our homeland security to do whatever we can to minimise the threat of such appalling occurrences taking place here or on outbound planes.

The only body scanner which fulfils the government's requirements is the L-3 Communications ProVision millimetre-wave body scanner. Passengers to go through scanners will be selected on a random basis, as is the case for existing explosives testing. I know the member for Hume has expressed reservations about the safety of the equipment for people who, like him, have pacemakers and defibrillators. My coalition colleague appreciates the necessity of this legislation; however, he is also right to question whether the actual scanning could be in any way harmful to someone carrying heart-saving technology.

Due to the extremely low power level of the scanner, it will not be able to detect internal medical insertions such as pacemakers or metal hips. The scanner uses a weak beam of radio waves transmitted at the person being scanned from two rotating masts inside the device. The exposure from the being in the scanner for 1.5 to 2.5 seconds is said to be less than what you would experience routinely during a flight and with 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than an average mobile telephone call. Energy reflected by the body or any other object on the body is received by the machine and analysed by the device's software. If an anomaly is detected, a small box indicating its location is superimposed on a generic human image which is displayed for closer inspection by screening staff. The machines are not capable of storing or transmitting any information or data. The scanning will be culturally sensitive in that passengers will not be required to remove any religious items or clothing.

Being held up at an airport for a safety test is usually a hassle and invariably it occurs whenever you have the least amount of time to get to the boarding gate. But for safety's sake it is a necessary incursion in our modern life and if it helps to detect one—just one—person attempting to wreak havoc, then it is well worth the effort. I commend the bill to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join the debate in relation to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. It is with great disappointment that I stand here tonight to participate in this debate, because I think it is very sad that we are forced in this day and age to take these steps. I think it is a very sad reflection on the world we live in and the threats that are posed to international air travellers in particular. But I do acknowledge the expert advice that has been presented during this debate and the recommendations from security officials relied on through the department that this is a necessary step and I acknowledge that the coalition will not be opposing this legislation.

I must confess when I first heard about body scanners my own predisposition was to be negative towards them. My fear was that it would be just another intrusion upon people's rights to privacy and to their rights to go about the quiet enjoyment of their own lives, and it would be another significant cost to air travellers. So I did have significant reservations when I first heard about these body scanners.

The coalition does acknowledge that there are some concerns within the community about body scanners. I participated in the committee's inquiry into the body scanner technology and I must say that, having viewed the scanners and participated in that inquiry, most of the concerns I had were allayed. And I do note some of the previous speakers went through in some detail about some of those issues.

The first thing that I was perhaps satisfied with when it came to the issue of the body scanners was this issue of personal privacy in the fact that the legislation and the demonstration that many members took the opportunity to participate in really did allay my initial concerns in relation to privacy. The images which are displayed are not of an anatomical nature—people cannot distinguish between men or women or the size of a person or any other features by looking at those images. I am reassured by that and the legislation does provide for the fact that the images cannot be displayed and they cannot be transferred. So we are not going to have this situation where, as one of the previous speakers remarked—it may have been the member for McEwen—some of these images are then going to be popping up at a later point in time in websites or in some other place around the world. I think that is a very good thing and I am reassured by that aspect of the legislation.

Section 44(3B) states that image produced by a body scanner must be a gender-neutral, generic image such that the person is not identifiable and no anatomical or physical attributes of that person are revealed. I think that we can all take heart from that and the fact that this bill has been well drafted in that regard. We have all seen the images I believe of the body scanner image. It is just a stick figure but it does allow for the person operating the equipment to quickly identify any areas of concern, and that is one of the best aspects of it. For anyone who actually had the opportunity to use the scanner, the scanner was able to detect things—unusual objects—very quickly, and then it was easily resolved. The person operating the equipment can very easily go to the place on the person's body and resolve the issue very quickly, unlike with metal scanners where you often see people walking through multiple times, taking off belts, boots, watches and everything else they might have forgotten to take off, and it takes far longer period to resolve the issue. So I was reassured by that. It will be a quick and efficient method of resolving any security concerns.

Previous speakers also referred to an issue that I have been lobbied on by some people in the community who have some reservations with the body scanner technology in relation to health issues. I believe the Leader of the Nationals covered off on this issue particular well in his speech and I do not intend to go through it all again. There is no evidence to suggest that the body scanner technology does pose a health risk for individuals using them. In fact, one of the interesting things about the technology, particularly for people who may have had surgical implants, is that the body scan technology may be a preferred way of going through security checkpoints. It is less intrusive than having to explain the metal pin or whatever other medical device they might have for their various conditions.

In some ways it enhances privacy for people. I take comfort from the background information that indicates the scanner emits 10,000 times less radiofrequency energy than an average mobile phone call. So the machines themselves do meet the public health and safety tests that should be applied in these circumstances.

Having participated in the inquiry and having seen the machines in action, I am reassured that they will provide a worthwhile service in our security regime at our international airports. I have no argument with the need to use modern technology wherever possible to improve security. Unfortunately, the people who would do us harm are always looking for ways to go about their evil work. Giving passengers peace of mind is a very important aspect of this legislation. Also, it reflects the huge challenge we face to stay one step ahead of those who would seek to do us harm.

I will speak a little more broadly on the aviation industry and some of the security measures more generally in the time that is available to me. I will also reflect on some comments made previously by the shadow minister for tourism in his contribution. He referred to some of the additional concerns for aviation and the tourism industry arising from the budget and there are some issues there that I think the government needs to take onboard. I refer particularly to the Tourism and Transport Forum. They put out a statement on 9 May, after the budget, that was headed: 'The devil is in the detail.'

I do not intend to go through every aspect of the contribution by the Air Transport and Tourism Forum; but, when we are talking about legislation here today which will add costs to the Australian tourism industry, there are some very real challenges facing it. It is important that, whether we call them charges, levies, fees or whatever, these new costs all add up to being a tax on tourism. They act as a barrier when it comes to attracting international visitors to our shores. We have a situation where a high Australian dollar is making it difficult for the tourism industry in a very price-sensitive market. It is counterintuitive for us as a nation to be spending marketing dollars in an attempt to attract international tourists to our shores and then making ourselves less attractive or providing extra costs to the visiting tourists.

I acknowledge that one of the important aspects of this bill is that it helps promote Australia as a safe tourism destination. The body scanner technology will be of benefit to the industry where it applies to international flights. Increasing passenger movement charges and requirements for partial recovery of airport policing costs through the Australian police all effectively add up to another tax on tourism at a time when the tourism industry and the aviation sector, more generally, is facing some significant challenges. I urge the government to recognise this.

It is the same for regional aviation. I recently had the opportunity to meet with some senior staff members from Regional Express—or the Rex airline, as it is more commonly known. They are concerned that some of the combined impacts of government decisions and other changes in the regulatory environment are contributing to a $6 million hit per year on their bottom line. That is a significant cost. I acknowledge that Rex is a profitable business. They have been doing a good job and they are thriving in regional communities. But the government is making it harder at the moment. The minister needs to think very seriously about some of the decisions that are having an impact on the regional aviation sector.

The fact that the combined impacts of these threats are threatening the future viability of their industry is something the minister needs to take onboard. Among those threats is the carbon tax. It will have a direct impact on regional aviation. There is no shielding for regional air services and it will result in a direct price impact for travellers, which obviously makes it less attractive for them to use our regional airline services. The other point that was made very strongly to me is in relation to the en route scheme and is one that has been abandoned by this government. It will lead to a faster decline in regional air services and make it less likely for them to open up new areas of service throughout regional Australia. At a time when we should be supporting the regional aviation industry to open up new routes and drive regional development, we are unfortunately making it harder for it.

Another concern facing the regional aviation sector and perhaps relevant to this bill today in terms of body scanner technology is that there are some very serious issues associated with the additional security screening requirements in regional settings. I know we all take public health and safety very seriously, but it is so important that security measures are risk based, and they should be proportionate to the costs and benefits involved.

I will provide the House with an update on a particularly positive story about the Australian aviation sector. It relates to some news from a company called GippsAero in my electorate of Gippsland. It is a Mahindra Aerospace company and is based at the Latrobe Valley airfield in Traralgon. As far as I am aware, GippsAero is the only manufacturer of commercial aircraft in Australia. It has successfully completed the first flight of its new aircraft, the GA10. This aircraft is the first single turboprop designed and developed in Australia. It is a 10-seat multirole aircraft based on the very successful GA8 Airvan, which many people know of in the aviation sector and fondly call 'the ute of the sky'.

They have been a very successful company in Gippsland. In fact, they have sold more than 200 units throughout the world. We are very proud of the company and what it has been able to achieve during some fairly difficult times. They have come through the global financial crisis with a different management model—I acknowledge that—but they have been very successful and an important employer in the Gippsland region. The CEO of GippsAero, Dr Terry Miles, announced this week:

The GA10 will bring an entry level turboprop utility aircraft to the market place enabling operators to make the not inconsiderable step of moving from piston to turboprop power.

The projected low purchase price and low operating costs of the GA10, coupled with its great versatility, will offer operators a commercially viable multi role turbo prop aircraft.

It is not my role to run advertising for GippsAero but I am very proud of the company. I congratulate them on the work they are doing. They are doing an extraordinarily good job. They have manufactured and sold in excess of 200 aircraft that fly in 34 countries around the world, including in the US, Australia, Europe and Asia. It is a terrific little regional business that we hope to expand greatly in the future.

On those expansion plans, there are real opportunities for governments at all levels to partner with GippsAero and the Latrobe Regional Airport in the opportunities to develop a real aviation niche in Traralgon. Right now, we have a commitment on the table from Latrobe City of $500,000 and the state government has committed $1.5 million. And just today the state government added another $1.2 million to its commitment to the upgrade of the airport, bringing it to $3.2 million. This is on the table and available for use for the upgrade of Latrobe Regional Airport. However, the challenge now is that we need to secure funding under the Regional Development Australia Fund. I am optimistic, and I know the Gippsland board of Regional Development Australia is very positive about the project plan for the Latrobe Valley. A lot of government ministers have come to the Latrobe Valley and talked a lot about ways they would like to help my community adjust to the impact of the carbon tax, but it remains to be seen whether the government is going to put money on the table—and when I say the government, I am referring to the federal government.

So supporting an upgrade of Latrobe Regional Airport would be a very good start, and I urge the relevant ministers to take note of the commitments that are already on the table: firstly, the Latrobe city's $500,000 commitment; and now with the state government adding a further $1.2 million today to the $1.5 million that they have already committed. I congratulate those levels of government and I look forward to the expansion of Latrobe Regional Airport, which will enable the local aircraft manufacturer, GippsAero, to expand its operations to meet the growing business needs of my community. I would like to encourage the federal government to have a very close look at this particular project; I know it is being actively considered by the government at the moment.

Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, I appreciate your indulgence; I did stray a little bit from the body scanner technology but I think it was important to raise a couple of other regional aviation issues, particularly as they apply to my electorate of Gippsland, and to mention some of the opportunities that exist in regional aviation throughout Australia. There is a very good opportunity for this government, or future governments, to work with the regional aviation sector. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, coming from a regional seat, the tyranny of distance can make it difficult for us to expand our opportunities—particularly for young people growing up in regional communities—but, if we can continue to support regional aviation, we can help to drive regional development opportunities. I would like to see this and future governments work closely with the regional aviation sector for the benefit of the entire nation.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his contribution. I note that a bigger indulgence in his favour today was him playing for New South Wales in the State of—

Mr Chester interjecting—

I beg your pardon; that is okay then. We will return to the bill.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity tonight to make some comments on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. When visit schools and talk to children in the Cowan electorate about government and parliament—whether they are in primary school or high school—I am very clear on this matter. I say to the children: the one thing that is always clear is that both sides of politics believe in making this country the best place it can be, but the difference between them—the Labor side and the Liberal-National side—is how we get to that place. I can say that about the major parties; I am not so sure about the fringe party.

This is one of those bills where we are as one. This is one of those bills where we believe that more needs to be done. We welcome the fact that this bill is coming through. I certainly endorse the technology and I endorse the bill.

In recent days we have heard that the only person found guilty of and sentenced for the Lockerbie terrorist attack, the attack that brought down the Pan Am 747 over Scotland so many years ago, has recently passed away—and good riddance, might I say. The involvement of the then Libyan regime in that matter is, I think, strongly suspected and believed by most people. The reality is—whether it is in the past, like major terrorist attacks like that one; in the more recent past; or when we look forward to the future—that there are people out there who wish to create havoc. They wish to murder and kill innocent people. As a result of that, governments around the world need to work together and come up with these sorts of laws, and make use of technology which is going to increase the likelihood of detection and safeguard the people.

There is nothing more tragic in the world than to see those—particularly the innocents, the women and the children—who have nothing to do with politics and who have nothing to do with the issues that so many terrorist groups espouse around the world get caught up, get killed, maimed or terrified in the crossfire of the evil and brutal ways of such groups.

When I was in the Australian Federal Police many years ago, back in 1986 and 1987, the security arrangements at the airports at that time were good, but they were only up to the technology at the time. We have seen that technology move on. That technology, as I said before, is required to deal with not only the conventional and the usual threats that might be out there, such as the weapons of various kinds and the explosive devices, but also the latest technology, such as the underwear bomb and the new generation of underwear bomb that was recently discovered by the US secret services. What we need is a further increase in security to match up to the threats that currently face the world.

Australians are used to running their carry-on baggage through the X-ray machines and stepping through the X-ray machines and, more recently, the random checks of explosive trace devices that we have at the airports. All of us who travel regularly, from Perth and from other places, are subject to that—I think I have had about a hundred explosive trace detection tests—and Australians accept that. I do not wish to run down the privacy concerns but, ultimately, everybody who hops on a plane wants to be safe and they are prepared to forgo a little bit of convenience to make sure that their journey is not going to be stopped by a terrorist attack or by people up to no good with weapons or explosives. So there is no doubt that there are some privacy concerns. You only need look on the internet at Google images of the body-scanning machines we are talking about today to see sensationalist pictures of somebody appearing in a—let us say—anatomically correct way. Of course people are concerned about that, so it is heartening and completely appropriate that within this bill the regulations are completely defined. It is absolutely the case that the use of only gender-neutral, generic images of the body are absolutely locked into the bill and that the legislation looks at and addresses the fact that improvements in technology will see further generations of these sorts of machines coming through.

One of the images I have seen from these body scanning machines was of the minister—in all his clothed glory, luckily. He went through one of those machines. A number of us also got to test out the machines ourselves, and that was a very good way of making sure that we as parliamentarians were better informed. I was given the opportunity to put myself through one of these machines and, because I had already emptied my pockets, nothing came up. I was heartened by that, but then I remembered that in my office I had a small plastic covered device which I had been given several years before during a science-meets-parliament event and that one part of the device could be pulled off to reveal a very sharp knife. I was thinking, 'I will go and find that in my office, and I will come back and slide it down one of my socks and work out whether this machine is as good as it could be.' There was no doubt—as soon as image came up, there in yellow the machine described exactly where the knife was hidden on my person. So I became a very clear and absolute fan of this technology.

I had seen one of these machines in Los Angeles a couple of years before, soon after the last election. A member of my family was asked to go through one of the machines, and I was of the view that perhaps a little bit more could be seen than just the non-anatomically correct image. But I am greatly heartened by the fact that such privacy concerns are covered within the legislation. The machines cannot record images, and a fuller stick figure is all that is going to come up on the images. Through personal experience, I have no doubt that these machines are very good and that they do detect what needs to be detected.

There have also been concerns—although none have been raised with me personally within the electorate of Cowan—that these machines will expose a person to increased electromagnetic radiation. But this is also dealt with in the legislation. The scanner will emit 10,000 times less radiofrequency energy than an average mobile phone telephone call. I think that fact really addresses the key issues that have been covered by a lot of the commentary on these body scanning machines.

I turn now to address concerns about cultural and religious profiling. I have watched very carefully the existing explosive trace detection regime that takes place at our airports, because with my federal police background I am quite interested in aviation security, and, as a frequent flyer, I am very interested in aviation security. I have observed the people who are picked up during the X-ray walk-throughs to be called forward for the explosive trace detection procedure, and it does seem to be very random. It does not appear that people are targeted for any sort of racial, cultural or religious reason.

In conclusion I say that I think that what we have here in Australia is pretty good so far and that this bill and this technology will improve what we already have. As I said before, there have been some great tragedies in history and, as we know, there has never been a single survivor of an explosion on board an aircraft. We want to make sure that the best security regimes possible are in place and that the Australian public and visitors to our country are as safe as possible. All the concerns about implanted medical devices, about medical objects, about privacy and about the targeting of particular groups are addressed in the bill. We have a good background in this country in making sure that security measures are applied fairly and appropriately, and I have great confidence that aviation security will only be improved by this bill and by this technology. I welcome the passage of the bill, and I look forward to seeing body-scanning devices used widely throughout the nation's airports.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all those who participated in such a constructive way during the debate on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. The introduction of security screening technology is an important step in further strengthening the security of the nation's aviation industry. The attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 in December 2009 and the recently disrupted plot to bomb a US-bound aircraft using a non-metal improvised explosive device highlight the need for robust aviation security screening systems that are capable of detecting non-metallic threats to commercial passenger aircraft. The introduction of body scanners will ensure that travellers departing Australia are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism.

My department has consulted extensively with other government agencies, community stakeholders and industry to ensure that all health and privacy issues associated with the introduction of this technology have been fully explored. As a result of these discussions, the government has put in place a number of measures to protect the privacy and health of travellers.

Firstly, it is a requirement that body scanners used for aviation security screening in Australia must use non-ionising millimetre wave-technology. X-ray technology will not be allowed. Secondly, to protect the privacy of the travelling public, any image produced by a body scanner must only be a generic or stick figure image that is gender neutral and from which the person cannot be identified. In addition, the body scanner must not store any image of the person that is produced by the equipment or any personal information about the person.

This bill will ensure that body scanners are used in such a way that achieves both an optimal security outcome and a minimal impact on passenger facilitation. The passage of this bill will help to ensure the safety of the 13 million people that depart from Australia's international airports each year.

I thank once again all members who participated in the debate and I thank the House for the support of this important legislation, which I commend to the House.

Bill read a second time.