Originally Posted by
haasha
That still does not explain why would this affect terminals built before any liquid rules or similar silliness were introduced, and why you don't have just security in between domestic and international. That's certainly more efficient than having bus/train and then security (okay, it could mean one less security but anyway...).
I am guessing it was simply due to the fact that not many pax were actually leaving the country and hence no need for easy transfers. SYD actually plans to consolidate the domestic and international traffic according to its Master plan 2033.
The security standards may always have differed, for one. In a country filled with remote airports serving explosives-handling mine workers, it would not surprise me at all if before 9/11 Australian domestic security had a few weak spots that could not really be countenanced by international carriers.
As to the question about introducing security (and passport control) between dom and int ... instead of dom->landside->int ... well, what is the point really? You've just moved the problem. I would agree that it would be nice to have it all under one roof.
So in respect of that question, the separation of international and domestic terminals, that is probably just poor planning by non-travelling civil engineers. To be fair pre-Terminal 5, BA operated under a similarly silly arrangement, with longhaul and shorthaul in different terminals.