IAN McAULEY. Dutton’s extended police powers won’t be confined to airports

Dutton’s proposal to allow police to stop people at random at airports has little if anything to do with community safety, and everything to do with his desire to extend police powers and to help the government in its bid for re-election.

In 1985 the Hawke Government proposed to amalgamate various forms of government identification into a single identifier known as the “Australia Card”. Although the government’s specific concern was with tax and welfare fraud, the proposal met with strong opposition from groups all along the political spectrum, and the government dropped the idea.

Now, in the context of the government’s $300 million “enhancing aviation security” package, Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton proposes to allow police at airports to stop people at random and demand identification, even if there is no indication that those so targeted may be about to commit a crime. In other words, there would be no legal threshold to allowing police to stop and question people. And by implication there could be unpleasant consequences for those who do not carry ID.

Unlike the strong opposition to the Australia Card, this proposal has met with little resistance. Perhaps it’s because the same partisan media that jumped on the Hawke Labor Government in 1985 is giving the Coalition Government an easy run in 2018. Or perhaps it’s because there’s a hyper-awareness of airport security, so in that context it must be OK.

But it’s not OK, because there is nothing about a supposed need applying to airports that would not apply more generally to all public spaces. There is nothing special about airports.

Introduced under the guise of airport security, Dutton’s proposal would easily morph into a situation where Australia becomes one of those countries where one may not venture into public space without ID. Public space, already under assault from commercial interests, would become space one uses only with the permission of the state security apparatus.

It’s hard to see how this proposal has anything to do with keeping us safe from terrorism. Rather it seems to be a political move to extend Dutton’s assault on civil liberties and to shore up the Coalition’s pre-election stocks.

Terrorists operate on two general principles. They seek “soft” relatively undefended targets, and they seek spectacle.

There is no shortage of soft targets. Any place where crowds gather is promising. It’s all the better if they are places where young people congregate, such as a rock concert, or where people come out to celebrate, such as a community event. We can recall the 2015 attacks in Paris on the Stade de France and the Bataclan Theatre, or the 2016 attack on Berlin’s Weihnachtsmarkt. The attacks were specifically designed to make people fearful of coming together. In Australia we can recall the successfully thwarted Anzac Day plot in 2015.

Apart from the 2016 attack in Brussels, airports are no longer terrorists’ prime targets. Because governments have focussed on aviation security there have been no passenger lives lost through hijacking since the 9/11 attacks. Hijacking was in fashion in the 1970s, but it has been on a downward trajectory ever since.

That is not to advocate complacency: there are still many terrorist attempts. We are fortunate that last year the Federal Police successfully thwarted an attempt to blow up an Etihad flight from Sydney to Abu Dhabi, but it seems that their success was based on intelligence gathered well before the two brothers got anywhere near the airport.

The point is that if police can be justified in arbitrarily stopping people at airports, which have become relatively safe from terrorism, then there is a strong case for extending those powers to other areas that have become relatively more dangerous, not only from organised terrorist attacks but also from wannabe terrorist cranks, from drivers zonked on ice, from belligerent drunks and other menaces.

Like extreme right ideologues throughout history (and let’s be frank, these thugs are on the far religious right), terrorists see the destruction of civic society as one of their prime objectives. It’s not just the body count they’re after; rather it’s about raising fear and mistrust in the community, and in this regard those politicians who overstate the risk of terrorism and raise fear in the community play right into their hands.

Admittedly aviation still has appeal for terrorists because in terms of impact there is probably nothing more spectacular than flying a plane into a high-rise building, or as a second-best blowing it up in mid-flight. The terrorists are also helped by some people’s fear of flying. But there are other opportunities for gruesome spectacles: as an engineer trained in explosives I could nominate three or four.

The spectacle of aviation-related terrorism has appeal not only for terrorists, but also for conservative politicians. Conservatives use fear as a powerful political weapon. Fear of aviation-related terrorism, even if the actual risks are vanishingly small, is an opportunity to be exploited.

In economists’ terms we are almost certainly seeing diminished returns for each dollar spent on aviation security, while neglecting opportunities for risk reduction in other areas of our lives. That means because of politically-motivated resource misallocation, the community’s overall risk of death from violence is higher than it could be. Every cop who is patrolling the beat at an airport isn’t out there in other public places and isn’t on the roads protecting us from more real dangers.

For example, researchers found that as a consequence of airport security measures introduced in the USA after the 9/11 attacks, more people were deciding to drive rather than to fly over medium distances – an understandable decision in reaction to higher air fares, greater inconvenience and longer check-in times. It didn’t take long before the number of extra road deaths so induced surpassed the 9/11 fatalities, but these deaths didn’t have the political vividness of aircraft deaths.

It’s notable that in Australia much more attention is to be paid to security at non-metropolitan airports, and surely these costs will be passed on to people living in or visiting rural cities who already face outrageously high air fares. Having lost their railroads many years ago, their only other option is to drive. (But the people of Mildura may rest assured that there will be even less likelihood of a crazed jihadist taking over a Beechcraft King Air and smashing it into the Grand Hotel.)

The only compelling reasons for the government’s moves on airport security are political. If it really wanted to improve airport security it could do a great deal without spending any money  and without weakening our civil liberties. Our capital city airports have become vast shopping malls, mainly on what is known as the “airside” of airports – that is the area restricted to those who pass through security screening. Anyone who regularly works on the airside – pilots, baggage handlers, shop assistants – must hold an Aviation Security Identity Card, issued after a process of security screening. The ASIC system has certain weaknesses – no security system is perfect – and the more people are permitted to work “airside” the greater is the security risk. It seems that the Commonwealth, in its deals to privatize airports, has allowed the commercial interests of airport owners to override security concerns.

It’s fairly clear that the government has put Dutton’s ideological obsessions and its own re-election ahead of protecting the community from violence.

 

Ian McAuley is an Adjunct Lecturer in Public Sector Finance at the University of Canberra and a Fellow at the Centre for Policy Development.

print
This entry was posted in Defence/Security. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to IAN McAULEY. Dutton’s extended police powers won’t be confined to airports

  1. Bill Morgan says:

    Good piece .It is clear that Dutton is trying to bait or wedge Labor on this issue .The more the Liberals keep banging on about national security the less time having to defend its massive tax cuts to the banks etc.

  2. John Thompson says:

    What is it about security at airports? Why not other forms of transport? A Melbourne E-class tram holds 210 passengers yet no-one has suggested that all passengers and their luggage should be screened.
    The level of expenditure on airport security measures, including the cost of passengers’ time involved in security procedures, is very substantial and there has been no case presented to indicate that further measures are warranted. Indeed, the Auditor General reported in 2016 that “the Department is unable to provide assurance that passenger screening is effective, or to what extent screening authorities comply with the Regulations, due to poor data and inadequate records. The Department does not have meaningful passenger screening performance targets or enforcement strategies and does not direct resources to areas with a higher risk of non-compliance.”
    Neither Peter Dutton nor Malcolm Turnbull have been able to justify Dutton’s latest proposed infringement of civil liberties by any other argument than manufacturing fear.
    I travel fairly frequently by air and have come to view the security manpower in our airports as a quite expensive employment program.

  3. Greg Bailey says:

    This is a real problem and Ian has summarised it very well. The diminution of civil liberties continued, but I fear it will be of no concern to the average voter as it does not (yet) concern them directly, and much of it–the increased budget given to ASIO–will be unknown to them. At a considerable distance, but on the same tangent, are the ongoing attacks on the ABC, with another one from the PM’s office being recorded in the Age this afternoon. These attacks are intended to minimise the reportage of these ongoing restrictions on civil liberties, and will certainly stop the larger picture being reported where all the background dots are joined together.

    If Dutton is increasing his octopus hold on certain government departments, we should never forget who is allowing him to do this: Malcolm Turnbull. A man who is clever at revealing his true colours and who still receives considerable support from the mainstream media. I hope we do not become a gesamtsicherheitsstaat, to make up an appropriate compound, but the seeds have been deeply laid. Nor is the ALP without blame for this.

Comments are closed.