Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to follow the member for Bendigo and happy to follow his lead in regard to Labor members campaigning on what this Prime Minister has not done, not only over this term but over the past 10½ years—what he has not done in Labor electorates and other electorates from one end of the country to the other.

But I also say that I am happy to follow the member for Bendigo and to speak with my other Labor colleagues in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006. There are 25 Labor members speaking on these appropriation bills. Two members of the government side spoke today. Three spoke in the House. Twenty-five to five is a ratio of five to one. That should be enough of a condemnation of the laziness of this government’s members, as I mentioned the other day in speaking to some other bills, in terms of their speaking duties in the House. If this government was not out of puff, if it had not run out of ideas—however good or bad those ideas are—if it had not run out of steam in terms of people being willing to commit themselves to what they have done, instead of simply relying upon Commonwealth public servants and the occasional minister to run the case for what is being done, or relying upon the media doing the job of parliamentarians in this place, there would not be a five-to-one ratio of ALP members to government members speaking on these appropriation bills.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that, if you were to take a look at the speaking lists on a range of bills we have had before us in this parliament, you would see the same story over and over again. The members of this government are not taking the process of government, or their duties in relation to that, seriously. They are leaving it to Mark Textor and others, and to their advertising programs, to tell their story for them.

This is fine by me, in a way, because however insignificant people in the government think speeches in this House are, and however much things might have changed because of the changed nature of technology, the fundamental role of the parliament is to be a talk shop. It is a talk shop, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr—as you well know from your ministerial experience—where, unless you are willing to get up and defend what you have been doing and to do that not just at ministerial level but down to every level of the government, you are not going to sustain yourself in government and you are not going to be able to energise the whole government process. The whole show has run out of puff when it gets to these ludicrous levels. The energy in this parliament is with the Labor Party—and has been for many long years now, as this indicates—and so it is proper that we should take the reins of government. I think that is important, but it is an important issue I mention in passing.

There are a number of measures in these appropriation bills, and this is basically catch-up. We have the budget appropriations where they lay out what they think they are going to do for the next year and what the provisions are. We then have a mid-year review to say, ‘This is what we have done so far and this is where we think we are going,’ and there are adjustments made—as there always are in the budget process—and moneys are sought for various programs.

I want to comment on the defence programs in both these appropriation bills—they seem to have doubled up. That they appear in both appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 is somewhat passing strange, unless I have misread the situation. I want to speak about our defence commitments, particularly in Afghanistan, and the security at our federal airports. This is a theme that I took up the other day in debating the AusCheck Bill 2006, which was presented by the Attorney-General and which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, spoke on as well. I want to take up some of the elements of that debate in terms of the government initiatives canvassed here and what else needs to be done in this area.

I want to flag an important study—hopefully I will get to it today—done by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Its author is Andrew Davies and it is entitled The generation gap: Australia and the Super Hornet. This important document has a direct and fundamental bearing on the appropriations before us. The government, from out of nowhere, has decided to buy a bunch of Navy Super Hornets from the United States, built specifically for aircraft carriers. The Australian government is going to spend about $4 billion on buying or leasing these aircraft in order to cover the strategic gap that will be there, we think, with the arrival of the JSF. This study bears on the fact that this is immensely important for our national security and defence posture. It also goes to the whole question of how this government decides to spend its dough. Like Menzies, the government is into adhocery at almost every level. There is not enough consistent planning at its basis.

I support the additional funding outlined in the legislation. A provision of $120.8 million is made for Operation Astute to restore peace and stability in East Timor. We have had to go back to East Timor in order to settle the problems that occurred there. This could not have been readily predicted and it is necessary to support it. The cost of these kinds of operations is increasing, as we continue to intervene in East Timor and in the Pacific region. This indicates the changed nature of the environment we face—it is very different from when we were last in government—and the pressures on the budget and on our defence forces.

A provision of $49.6 million is made in these bills for the first stage of the program to improve the retention and recruitment of Australian Defence Force personnel. This is necessary because of the minerals boom and because people who are highly qualified or who have great expertise in particular areas can make more by working outside—there is always a siren call for people in the defence forces. It is also because of the skills crisis that the government has allowed to develop. Well-skilled people in the defence forces are in great demand in the economy, and not just because of the minerals boom—they are in demand across the board. The government has not done an adequate job in the education and training area to provide Australia with the young, highly-skilled people it needs across all disciplines and in all areas—professional and trade. This is particularly important for us in the defence area. The government has contracted out or outsourced so much of its work. That is the way it has gone over the last 10½ years. It is no longer willing to sustain work internally. That presents a problem for us. I do not think it is a wise thing to do.

People used to be rolled back when they were injured in the field in a program where they would go through the workshops and do work they were capable of doing—light work. They would be kept involved in the process instead of staying in the barracks to deal with their difficulties. Active work is of great benefit to the defence forces as a whole. Most of that work has now been taken outside, and that has put pressure on our forces. Lastly, $32 million is provided to deliver stage 1 of the enhanced land initiative to increase the size of the Australian Army by one light infantry battalion. The government has made this decision largely because an expanded role is now being given to our defence forces.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also draw your attention to the materials for appropriation bills Nos 3 and 4 in the Bills Digest and what is laid out. It seems rather strange, but in the Bills Digest for No. 4 it says:

• $27.9 million will be allocated to the Department of Defence to fund a Special Forces Task Group to Afghanistan, and a further $27 million will be provided to deploy helicopters and support elements in Afghanistan; these increases have been fully offset by savings arising in the department’s non-operating budget

If we look at Appropriation Bill (No. 3), there is:

• $40.9 million to provide a Special Forces Task Group to Afghanistan
• $16 million to fund the deployment of helicopters and support elements in Afghanistan

Usually they would be in one bill rather than the other—unless the Bills Digest is wrong. I would be interested to know from the library if that is the case. Which bill are we looking at here? Are we doubling up or is it a case of clerical error? Are we going to provide two buckets of money to basically do the same job? The other major element here again crosses over. It is:

• a total of $34.3 million to the Australian Federal Police to fund the Joint Airport Intelligence Group and to implement phase 1 of community policing at airports

If one goes to the Bills Digest for No. 3, there is $29.2 million in a range of areas with the Department of the Attorney-General, including ‘$27.2 million for phase 1 of community policing at airports’—that is a difference of $0.71 million. Are we getting two cracks at this whip or is it just some kind of mistake? I would appreciate it if that was clarified.

If we look at what else is laid out in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) with regard to airport security, there are quite significant bits and pieces that are put together in an area where there is an expectation that our airports need to be as safe as possible. The extension of moneys needed for the war in Afghanistan will only continue in the future as pressure increasingly comes on coalition efforts in that country. But the pressure here in Australia to secure ourselves properly is indicated, particularly this year, in item 1 in relation to the Attorney-General’s Department asking for more money. The department wants:

• $18.1 million for security costs associated with the APEC Leaders’ Week 2007.

That is money for that. It is not just the leaders week we are looking at here in 2007 with massive security attached to that—60 leaders from the Asia-Pacific area coming in. Our very first meetings have happened already. They are happening in Perth. We have Comcar drivers going over there for ministerial and departmental meetings. We know that the whole month prior to APEC will be taken up with significant meetings between officials and essentially the leaders will come on to tick the boxes and do the presentation on what is to emerge from that conference. This is a vitally important conference for Australia to demonstrate itself to the world, and the security aspects and money spent on Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport are critical.

As part of that there is ‘a total of $54.6 million to the Australian Federal Police for airport policing measures’. I have already mentioned this in relation to community policing. There is also:

• $18.2 million to provide a first response counter-terrorism capability at relevant airports, and
• $9.2 million to establish joint airport investigation teams with the Australian Customs Service, who will also receive an additional $1 million for this initiative.

Related to that, in transport and regional services:

• ‘$11.9 million has been provided to the Department of Transport and Regional Services to improve security of international passenger aircraft through increased inspection of air cargo.

We need to do these things, but, as I argued the other day, we need to do a hell of a lot more.

The specific provision on community policing and on seeking to work with Customs and the Australian Federal Police for policing at the airport I do not think goes far enough, because it will not get to the nub of the key problem at that airport: our security has been breached in the past and it will be breached in the future because there are gangs operating—they have been operating for decades—at Sydney airport. Why? Because of the immense amount of drugs and other contraband that goes through the place that has not been adequately picked up. They only pick up part of it.

The money going to the Department of Transport and Regional Services for extra scanning will assist. But it will not assist in a situation such as that which existed in the old Ansett air cargo. People there were running a racket for years. They put pressure on new people who came to work with them to turn their heads the other way and not look at the trucks being driven out with contraband in them; they would be looked after if they did that. I know that from direct personal family experience, because my brother was working there. When he was threatened by these people, he only got out of that situation because there were some Maoris, who were pretty big blokes and pretty effective, who were willing to defend someone who wanted to continue to be honest in the way they did their work. That is a problem that existed there. It exists. If you talk to the people who used to work in Qantas security about the problems that existed then—and the problems that existed when Wackenhut came in and when SNP came in, with the outsourcing and contracting of work at Sydney airport—you find that these problems have not been readily fixed. Why? Because we do not have Commonwealth government employees in charge of that security.

I have some experience of this. While Mr Keating was Treasurer, and particularly in the time he was Prime Minister, I can indicate that, as his electorate officer, I was able to do some things at the federal government level to achieve a better security situation at Kingsford Smith airport and to defend the Australian government employees at Qantas and the security people when the security director, Geoff Askew—who is still in charge of Qantas security—wanted to throw those people out of their jobs and put in the Wackenhut mob from America. Eventually they got SNP and a combination of the two. He could not do it, because they were protected by the Prime Minister and by the Australian government and their jobs were secured—until the day before the 1996 election when they were told that, if we went out, they were gone as well. What went was a qualified security force that people could rely upon, who were willing to stand up and say, ‘You’re not going to get away with those kinds of breaches, because they are criminal, and you’re not going to get away with people just turning a blind eye.’ I have a branch president, Claude Killick, who did exactly that—put his life on the line time and time again. There was cargo going off to Japan with Prime Minister Keating and there had been evidence of potential tampering. Claude sat with the cargo throughout the entire night to make sure that stuff was not pilfered from it, in the time-honoured way that it had been done at Kingsford Smith airport.

The only way you will get a proper solution to the security problems, the contraband problems and the drug dealing problems is to have one dedicated force. I do not think it is enough just to have the intersection between Customs and the Federal Police. It is this Australian coalition government that has taken responsibility away from Australian government employees at that airport, that has allowed the outsourcing that has opened a window for a security breach—and that window can be exploited by virtually anyone who wants to. The measures taken through AusCheck and otherwise do not get to the core of the problem. You do not fundamentally know who is working at that airport, because the major security groups subcontract down to the point that, when casuals run into the place, they could be from anywhere. That is the fundamental security hole that has to be plugged. How do you plug it? Get rid of all the private security people, put Australian government employees in place who are responsible to the secretary of the department, who is then responsible to the minister, who is responsible to the parliament and the Australian people. That is the way the Americans do it; that is the way it was done under Labor; that is the way it should be done here.

In these areas I support what is being expended in relation to defence and the measures, inadequate though they are, by the Attorney-General in relation to improving security at those airports. But I want to underline here for anyone who needs to look at this situation in terms of the potential gap that is there that, as to going for a Super Hornet, which bears virtually no relationship whatsoever to the F18 Hornets we have now—and also to the upgraded and improved version of that, which is a $3 billion program that has been undertaken; I will return to this later in another context—it is a dumb decision to go with a plane that is inadequate. We should look at this from the bottom up again in terms of the expenditure here, because the $18 billion or so can rack up against what is recommended here—that is, $21.7 billion for 60 Raptor F22s.

See this speech in context