Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Hansard source

Never let it be said that we are not confused on this side of the chamber! Obviously, my comments in the previous debate on the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill actually related to the AusCheck Bill 2006, which is now before the parliament. I should say for the record that we were happy to support the passage of the money-laundering bill that was just dealt with.

In speaking to the AusCheck Bill, I do not propose to repeat the things that I said at the wrong point in time a moment ago, but there are one or two things that I should add. In terms of the question of scrutiny of bills as opposed to scrutiny of regulations, my comments a moment ago stand—notwithstanding the misrepresentation of them by the Attorney. The simple fact is that a bill before this parliament typically rests in the parliament for a couple of weeks. It is then debated through a second reading debate, if need be in committee, through a third reading debate and it then goes to the other chamber. The process for dealing with regulation is straightforward. A regulation is listed and becomes law unless one or other of the chambers carries a resolution to disallow it. That is a simple one-resolution process.

For those who want to consider the way in which that is undertaken, I suggest they have a look at the disallowable instruments list that is put out and see the pages of regulations that the government put in place—most of which never come before this parliament for discussion or consideration. In many cases, that is for good reason—for example, administrative regulations for good governance in accordance with the law. The regulations that I spoke about—which were in the original bill but have now been taken out by virtue of the Senate’s decision—were not implementing good governance administratively in accordance with the bill; they were designed to extend the bill to the widest possible parameters the Constitution of Australia permits. There is a world of difference.

The Attorney may want to feign indignation at the thought that regulations do not undergo the same scrutiny as bills, but it happens to be a case of process of government. I have no doubt that the Attorney understands that well. I have no doubt that anybody who actually looks at it understands that well. I am sure that the legal fraternity would be thrilled to know that the Attorney-General of Australia sees no difference in the level of scrutiny to which regulations are subjected compared to a bill before the parliament. If that is indeed the Attorney’s considered view, he might find more than the odd lawyer around the country who would beg to differ.

The amendments that we are now dealing with improve the legislation. As I commented before, it is a pity that the others were not picked up. After this is dealt with, I will move an amendment to pick up one of the other recommendations that I think warrants particular attention.

Question agreed to.

I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:

Page 14 (after line 6), after clause 17, insert:

17A  Periodic reporting

        (1)    The Secretary must before the end of June and November in each year, give to the Minister a written report on the operation of the AusCheck scheme which includes the following specific details:

             (a)    the number and type of background checks conducted by AusCheck;

             (b)    the average time taken to conduct background checks;

             (c)    the specific provision in legislation under which background checks have been conducted;

             (d)    the number of individuals who have received adverse background checks and the basis for those adverse assessments; and

             (e)    the agencies to which information obtained by AusCheck has been shared and for what purposes.

        (2)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report provided to the Minister under subsection (1) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the Minster receives the report.

This amendment is relevant to the Senate amendments before us. Put simply, this is a provision that faithfully reflects the views that the Senate committee put in their recommendation 9. It is straightforward. You have to wonder why the government is so concerned to maintain secrecy about the operation of these checks. There is no tactical or operational information being sought. It is purely statistical data. The people of Australia and the parliament of our nation are entitled to know how often these unusual special powers to pry into people’s personal lives for the public good and for national security are used by the government of the day. They have a right to the statistical information that this amendment would provide.

I will be interested to hear from the Attorney why it is that the government regard it as inappropriate to report to this parliament on the number of occasions on which they use these checks. There is no conceivable reason. I can recall in earlier debates on other legislation where sunset clauses and reporting matters were dealt with where the Attorney claimed that it would be onerous and burdensome for the agencies involved to be doing these things. That is patent nonsense. If that is the core of the Attorney’s belief in this matter then frankly he will need to do a little bit better than that to convince anybody on his own back bench—let alone anyone out in the public—who has a concern about this.

Without accountability, these powers become open to abuse. One of the safeguards in our society against misuse of powers by the state in these situations is to have a light shone on the area in question. In other areas, that can be done through supervisory committees—and you see that in state governments in Australia as well as here—with parliamentary bodies, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and people like that. When it comes to the use of these powers, though, there is no reason at all why the parliament should not be informed as to how often these checks have been done, what background checks have been done, the number of individuals who have been involved and which agencies have been supplied with this information.

Why on earth can’t the parliament have that statistical information? What has the government got to hide in this process? It is a fair, reasonable and balanced position. It happens to be the unanimous view of a Senate committee which included a number of the minister’s colleagues—Senator Marise Payne, Senator Sandy Macdonald, Senator Stephen Parry and Senator Russell Trood—along with Labor senators and a Democrat senator. There was an additional participating senator, Senator Stott Despoja. That was a recommendation that they all thought made good sense and good governance. Why is it, Attorney-General, that that is not an appropriate thing?

See this speech in context