Australian Quarantine Review Secretariat Australian Quarantine a shared responsibility
Download 1.49 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 8.9 QUARANTINE CLEARANCE AT AIRPORTS AND SEAPORTS
- Aircraft passenger non-compliance
- Awareness
- Airport quarantine marshalling
- Vessels
- Wharf and Seaport Surveillance
- Travellers Statement
VECTOR MONITORINGWHO sets a standard (Article 19 of the International Health Regulations) for vector-free zones of 400 metres around the perimeter areas of international airports. The perimeter is defined as any buildings or land used for the parking of aircraft. The purpose of setting the standard is that most countries that are signatories to the WHO International Health Regulations do not insist on aircraft disinsection. Australia is not a signatory to the International Health Regulations but generally observes the WHO directives. The 400-metre vector-free zone should therefore be maintained and strictly policed at Australian airports. It should also be noted that the maintenance of the 400-metre vector-free zone is intended as much for preventing the transmission of disease out of a country as it is for ensuring the prevention of the disease from entering that country. In the context of the recommended discontinuation of aircraft disinsection, maintenance of the 400-metre vector-free zone takes on an added dimension. It is important that the 400-metre area form a proper buffer zone wherein appropriate measures can be initiated and maintained to ensure that breeding sites are monitored and treatments instituted if necessary. Vector monitoring for the presence of insects of public health concern ¾ particularly for mosquitoes and their breeding sites ¾ is also undertaken at seaports around Australia as part of Australia’s observance of International Health Regulations. Light traps and carbon dioxide traps are used, and water containers are provided for egg laying and subsequent identification of resultant larvae. Where necessary, breeding sites are treated to destroy larvae. However, the Review Committee understands that vector monitoring around seaports is not currently practised as rigorously as around airports. Recommendation 68: The Review Committee recommends that Quarantine Australia ensure that vector monitoring is undertaken in accordance with World Health Organization guidelines at all first ports of call. 8.9 QUARANTINE CLEARANCE AT AIRPORTS AND SEAPORTSAirportsIn 1995–96, some 6.8 million passengers arrived in Australia on about 52 000 international flights. Arriving passenger numbers are increasing by about 10% a year, and this trend is expected to continue to the year 2000 and possibly beyond. Increases over the past two years have been above official projections placing border agencies under strain. Passenger baggage at international airports is cleared through a two-channel system known as red–green. This system derives its name from an arrangement by which passengers ‘self-declare’ whether or not they have any goods that may be of customs or quarantine concern by exiting through a point marked by a sign that is red if they have such items or green if they have nothing to declare. Aircraft passenger non-complianceSurveys of passengers using the green channel (i.e. 84% of inbound passengers to Australia who declare they have no items of quarantine concern), commenced in 1991 to gauge the level of breaches of the airport terminal border. Surveys from 1991 to 1994 indicate that, with the exception of Cairns, the proportion of passengers intercepted in the green channel with items of quarantine concern was fairly constant, at about 26%. For Cairns, the figure was 35%. Further green channel surveys of all major Australian airports except for Melbourne (which at the time was undergoing a major refit) were conducted in December 1995. A survey in Melbourne was conducted in April 1996. Results for all ports except Melbourne show that, on average, 35% of passengers in the green channel have items of quarantine interest or concern that should have been declared. An average of 6% (included in the 35% leakage) had items that should have been seized and destroyed. The subsequent Melbourne survey revealed that 41% of green channel passengers have items that should have been declared ¾ including 5% with items that should have been seized and destroyed. Although the results of the green channel surveys seem disturbing, due attention should be paid to the scientific assessment of the risk of these border interceptions. Clearly, some items carried by passengers are of manageable risk, while other items potentially pose a significant risk. Unfortunately, scientific data are not available to undertake a full risk analysis of items apprehended at international airports. Intuitively, airports would seem to represent a high risk pathway because of the volume of passengers passing through them, the non-commercial nature of the goods often carried, and the leakage rate through the green channel. Just how high a risk can really only be determined after a full scientific risk analysis has been completed. The Review Committee acknowledges that considerable progress has been made in developing methods for preventing and detecting breaches of the quarantine border at airports. The airport detector dog program is proving a very valuable tool in detecting potential breaches of the Quarantine Act 1908. Advances in technology such as multi-energy X-ray systems and its development for examining passengers’ baggage and mail will also enhance border security. The use of more and better-located signs at airports, together with announcements and in-flight videos, is designed to alert the travelling public to Australia’s quarantine requirements. With regard to the in-flight video, a newly developed video message was completed and sent to airlines in September 1996, with the request that it be shown on Australia-bound flights. The Review Committee sees benefit in the videos as an additional means of reinforcing the quarantine message but makes the observation that this video may not necessarily be shown on all flights by all airlines as it is understood there is no legal requirement to do so. In addition, when used, the message may only be shown over the general video and sound system thus excluding those passengers with personalised sound and screen systems. The Review Committee is also aware that some airlines have recently introduced changes to in-flight entertainment systems and extended personalised video screens to all seats in all classes on their aircraft. This effectively means that in addition to passengers in first and business class who already have access to such systems on later model aircraft, all passengers on aircraft fitted with this latest equipment will be able to access the new multi-choice program systems, thus reducing the effect and consequential benefit of the in-flight video to quarantine security. AwarenessTo be fully effective, post-arrival activities need to be supplemented by pre-arrival education and awareness of travellers. Consistent with the continuum of quarantine and the principle of managing quarantine issues offshore where possible, the Review Committee believes that efforts should be intensified to establish a blend of offshore and onshore arrangements to educate both exiting Australians and intending travellers to Australia either not to bring potentially dangerous goods into the country or, if that message is received too late, to declare or dump such items at the border. Discussion on possible methods for improving travellers’ awareness of Australia’s quarantine requirements is contained in Chapter 6 on Offshore Activities. The Review Committee notes that there have been recent moves to disseminate quarantine information to intending visitors before their departure for Australia, but believes that more must be done in this area. The Review Committee’s recommendations on offshore awareness (see Section 6.5) should be read in conjunction with this section. The Review Committee is firmly of the view that if effective pre-embarkation awareness programs are developed and appropriately supported, together with a highly visible quarantine presence before the final declaration (the decision to self-declare by choosing the red or green channel exit), the green channel at airports would become what it is intended to be ¾ an exit for those with nothing to declare of quarantine significance ¾ thus allowing more quarantine attention and resources to be devoted to the red channel. Indeed, there would be an opportunity for facilitating quarantine clearance of tour groups organised by operators with a proven record of compliance with Australia’s quarantine requirements. Subject to periodic audit for compliance, such tour groups could be directed immediately to the green channel. Such an approach would be consistent with the Review Committee’s proposal to use incentives to encourage compliance with Australia’s quarantine requirements (see Section 8.10.7). Signs and publicity should attract attention and be provided in a range of relevant languages to alert passengers to the need to observe quarantine requirements. The recruitment and training of multi-lingual quarantine staff will assist in processing passengers with language difficulties. The Review Committee believes that these improvements, together with better focusing of resources and greater use of new technology, provide the best means of managing the quarantine risk associated with the increasing influx of airline passengers. Inspections of airport quarantine operations showed an obvious absence of experienced quarantine presence in the passenger process until the red-green channel area had been reached. With the exception of a detector dog handler at some airports, passengers encountered only ACS staff until this point. Although ACS officers have a basic knowledge of quarantine, they are not experienced in profiling passengers for quarantine purposes. The Review Committee notes with concern the absence of a quarantine presence when passengers first arrive in the terminal. Experienced quarantine officers can glean a good deal of intelligence by mixing with arriving passengers and profiling them for possible quarantine breaches. To some extent, the detector dog teams already provide a presence in this area, but that program needs supplementation at this key part in the passenger clearance process. A permanent quarantine presence by a roving marshal or marshals in the baggage hall to profile and question passengers (and with the authority to clear passengers after questioning or examine goods in passengers’ possession) will help overcome this deficiency. The Review Committee noted that quarantine marshals were used very effectively by United States officials during a site inspection of Dulles Airport in Washington. Recommendation 69: The Review Committee recommends that experienced quarantine officers be used as marshals in international airport arrival halls to profile passengers for quarantine purposes. VesselsEach vessel arriving in Australia for the first time is inspected and the details are entered into the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), which is a computer-driven risk management system. If the vessel passes without needing remedial work, it will not be inspected again until its fourth visit. If a vessel fails its initial or any subsequent inspection, it requires three consecutive clear inspections before it is returned to the reduced inspection program. High risk vessels such as yachts and livestock carriers are inspected at each visit. All quarantine staff have access to the system and can access the history of any vessel visiting Australian ports. VMS is also used to enter ballast water management details. It is used to record whether or not a vessel intends discharging ballast while in Australian waters, whether or not it has exchanged ballast water at sea during the voyage, and whether or not the vessel is part of a compliance arrangement for ballast water control. Experience with VMS has shown that the system is working satisfactorily and should be continued. Cruise ships are an added concern. These vessels generally travel from Australia through the South Pacific and visit a range of islands. Often passengers leave the vessels and collect local artefacts and food items to bring back to Australia. Many of these locally made articles are capable of bearing insects such as borers and are of potential quarantine concern. Because cruise ships tend to take and return passengers originating in Australia, the task of educating the ship operators in quarantine awareness should be far less difficult than with airlines. The Review Committee believes that attention should be given to developing publicity programs for cruise ship operators with an emphasis on advising passengers not to purchase and bring back to Australia items of potential quarantine concern. Live animals on board vessels ¾ particularly on board itinerant yachts ¾ are a significant potential quarantine risk if appropriate action is not taken to ensure that they remain on board the vessel. The Review Committee considers that the quarantine risk associated with live animals on board vessels is manageable provided the control measures and health checks currently in place are observed and strictly enforced. Wharf and Seaport SurveillanceHowever, the question of wharf surveillance is a separate issue. Items such as inadequately cleaned mining and harvesting equipment, and containers loaded at ports where the giant African snail is present, are being off-loaded at Australian ports. Recent experience has shown that in some cases such items are not inspected or treated before release. Surveillance of crews leaving ships is also a matter of concern. Although VMS is a successful method of targeting resources to areas of greatest threat, this has resulted in a reduction in wharf patrols, a feature of clearance practised in the past. The Review Committee is concerned at the inadequate resources allocated to this area of quarantine activity. Although it is acknowledged that airports present a risk, there is a significant imbalance between the resources allocated to airport operations and the amount of attention being paid to wharf and seaport surveillance ¾ for instance, the inadequate monitoring of refuse and of crews to ensure that they do not take potentially high risk items of food from the vessel. Unlike aircraft, sea-going vessels can carry significant quantities of uncooked food. A lack of surveillance of crew carrying this material onshore is regarded as a significant risk that should be addressed. Notices placed on ship gangways by the vessels’ agents or on port sheds and at exit gates should help alert ships’ crews of Australian quarantine requirements and their responsibilities.
Travellers StatementBefore arrival, passengers are required to complete a Customs and Quarantine Travellers Statement declaring if they have been in a yellow fever endemic area during the past three weeks and whether or not they have in their possession or personal baggage any items of animal or plant origin, and whether or not they have been on a farm while overseas. This statement has been in place for many years and has been used by both the Australian customs and quarantine services. ACS advised the Review Committee that it no longer requires the statement to be completed for customs purposes. This view was supported by Qantas Airways, which argued that to facilitate passenger movement through international terminals a written statement of this type should not be required. The Review Committee understands that an interdepartmental committee, chaired jointly by ACS and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, is currently reviewing passenger processing, and that it is unlikely that the Travellers Statement will cease to be required in the near future because of the requirements of quarantine authorities. The Review Committee views as most important the need for travellers to think about what is actually in their possession and then make a conscious and deliberate statement to that effect. The statement is an important tool for quarantine, particularly in regard to the expanded role envisaged by the Review Committee for the quarantine marshal at international airports. The Review Committee believes that the Travellers Statement should be retained, and improved by the inclusion of more targeted questions, such as whether or not the passenger: · is going to a farm in Australia, or will be visiting areas outside cities while in Australia; · has hiking or camping equipment that has been used overseas; or · has golf or other outdoor sporting equipment used overseas. Recommendation 71: The Review Committee recommends that the Travellers Statement be retained and improved by the addition of more strategic quarantine questions. Directory: SiteCollectionDocuments SiteCollectionDocuments -> Emerging Transport Technologies SiteCollectionDocuments -> Lesson Plan What are smart goals? SiteCollectionDocuments -> Melbourne Library Service Policy Public Access Internet and Computer Use Policy SiteCollectionDocuments -> Navy Drug Screening Laboratory Jacksonville SiteCollectionDocuments -> Building Management Systems (bms) Seminar 2 Advanced Management and Improvement Opportunities SiteCollectionDocuments -> Commitments and Pledges for Training and Capacity Building 2014-15 SiteCollectionDocuments -> Galileo® and Apollo® Systems – Airline Participants SiteCollectionDocuments -> Northern Australia Quarantine Strategy 25 years of protecting Australia SiteCollectionDocuments -> Final pest risk analysis report for Drosophila suzukii April 2013 SiteCollectionDocuments -> Permitted Seeds List – 16 June 2016 Download 1.49 Mb. Share with your friends:
|