Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is actually relevant to this legislation, because the truth is that, if this legislation had been enacted in the fifties, the Menzies government would have been able to disqualify people on the basis of Communist Party membership. We went through that charade in the fifties, where the High Court knocked over the government’s legislation and the people also rejected the government having those powers. So the interjection that the minister made is pertinent because it shows his prejudices. It also highlights how he as a minister would have a power that, in my opinion, is open to abuse by him because of his own prejudices should he say, ‘If you’re a member of the Communist Party’—or whatever—‘that will disqualify you in relation to this legislation.’

So even though it is out of order his interjection is relevant, which is why I took it up. And I thank him for it, because it does not take much to scratch this particular minister and get out his bile and his prejudices. He is now a minister of the Crown. Those sorts of interjections are unbecoming of a minister of the Crown. He is not an ordinary backbencher. He should act how his office requires him to act: responsibly, without prejudice. That is exactly the point that I make about those two particular subclauses that cause me to have some concern.

The government is to be applauded in the main for this legislation. It is based on protecting and securing our nation, and the government or the opposition should not be the repository of that. It is our responsibility as members of parliament and as ministers of the Crown. And, when ministers of the Crown make regulations, they should be doing so in terms of certain principles, not certain prejudices. All I am saying to the minister at the table and the government, and to anyone listening, is that I have no problems as long as the basic principles are enunciated. The parliament should be entitled to adopt those principles so that ministers or governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, cannot go off on frolics.

Unfortunately, we are living in an environment where there is a new McCarthyism. There is a fear out there in the community. Governments of all political persuasions are responding and coming up with quite oppressive laws. In relation to this legislation I say to the relevant minister that he is right in having this legislation as it pertains to the criminal history and security of an individual, and the assessment of that, and citizenship status. If there are other matters that the minister feels should come into the background check then I believe it does not necessarily need to be done, as a parliament, by regulation. Earlier I quoted the advantages of some regulations, because they do allow for urgent situations. We should not be naive enough to think that there will not be urgent situations in this area and that, as a result of conduct that is worrying, some instances or recommendations might require some urgent action but might not come to the attention of government and the bureaucracy.

I am not standing up and saying that in all instances, even in relation to this legislation, governments should be totally constrained, but there have to be some principles and the principles have to go to security. They have to go to the vulnerability of the systems that are currently in place and go to improving the systems and giving confidence to members of the public. What worries me is whether it will be a situation where unionism will be outlawed in relation to individuals.

I have a view about the security of our airports that we are a lot more vulnerable with the outsourcing that is taking place and the contractors who have a role there than with having an extension of the Australian Protective Service or public servants who are properly trained and with whom you would not necessarily have the turnover that you might have with an outsourced organisation. You could bring in public servants, properly remunerate them, give them pride in their job and properly train them to, in effect, do the baggage and security checks and profiling at airports et cetera. In my humble view, if you have a trained Public Service, you will have a more secure system than if you have an outsourced system that, with it, might bring people who are not necessarily criminal or a security problem, or whatever, but who, as a result of necessary cost cutting and other things, are not necessarily the best individuals to be in jobs that we regard as important.

With those short remarks, I commend the bill to the House and commend the government on bringing it forward. There are certainly advantages to this bill that are not currently there in the current system. I thank the minister for his disorderly interjection because it enabled me to point out how the system can be abused. I am sure that, in relation to the matters that I raise, the Senate committee and the minister will, hopefully, at least have a look at them. If there is merit in what I say then there is merit in the government looking at it. If it is not meritorious then it is a matter for the government.

See this speech in context