I guess the question a lot of people at the CTFR airports are asking is, what is the actual risk to their facility? There may of course be a risk, but if so the department has been really lax about publicizing it. Given the number of charming, well rounded individuals (not) that work for the D of I that is hardly surprising (I know at least one of them was drummed out of the army for bad people skills, which says it all really
).
Managing risk at a government level requires constant
PR about the risk. AQIS did this particularly well during the UK foot and mouth disease outbreak, where pax would stand in line for two hours to be searched and thank the inspectors for their vigilance. That was due to a concerted media campaign educating Australians about the adverse impact F&M would have on our economy and the public were overwhelmingly supportive about personal inconvenience for the greater good.
If the D of I wants aviation workers to take their enhanced measures seriously, they need to tell them why. Otherwise it comes across as beaurocracy gone mad and power tripping by government wankers. Additionally, one of the best defences against aviation terrorism is aviation workers, who number in the tens of thousands across the nation's major airports and can see and report more than the largest government department. The vast majority are also very anti-terrorism and only too happy to help the cause. Alienate them and the department neuters one of their best intelligence sources, and alienating them is all they seem to have achieved since the latest departmental rebirth.
Having had a certain amount to do with the new department, I agree with YPJT that in the event of complaints all they will do is increase measures across the board until everyone has to suffer like the major airports. In the meantime, you are free to drive whatever you like into your local footy ground / Westfield / entertainment centre without fear or favour, because despite the tens of thousands of people who congregate in these places daily, they don't seem to count as 'infrastructure'.
