Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the House and I thank Deputy Speaker Moylan for the opportunity to speak on the AusCheck Amendment Bill 2009, emanating from the Attorney-General’s Department. First, I would like to congratulate the Attorney-General and his department for the good work they have done in processing these amendments and what that will mean in terms of the national security capacity in Australia. I think the main purpose of this bill is very clear, and it is clear to the extent that it amends the AusCheck Act 2007 to provide a specific capacity for the minister’s department to carry out background checks for the purposes of other bits of legislation and acts. In itself, this amendment and this act will not provide for the background checks of persons in relation to any particular act. What it does is provide an extension where there is a limitation in the current act. The current act allows for background checks to be carried out in relation to only two specific areas of law—that of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. So there is currently limited scope by which background checks can be carried out. The bill in itself does not give the authority to carry out those background checks, but it provides for the Attorney-General to have that capacity, where it is required under other laws and jurisdictions.

This amendment to the bill extends that capacity to other areas of law and other jurisdictions. This bill highlights the continuing and longstanding commitment of the Labor Party, both in opposition and now in government, to take national security very, very seriously—to look at the practical measures by which national security measures can be enhanced; to look at the practical measures by which national security can be improved; and to look at the most effective and efficient methods by which this can be done. The importance of a strong national security regime is of no small consequence to the House, as is continuing to improve Australian law which provides for national security.

I can imagine that there would be some people, either in the community or in other areas, who may have particular concerns in the area of background checks. They might have those concerns for a number of reasons. I can assume that some of those concerns would come from people who are concerned about civil liberties, about privacy and about other issues related to a person’s background. But, in support of this bill and in support of that extra capacity given to the Attorney-General and his department to be able to carry out background checks in areas other than just the areas of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, there are some very good reasons why background checking should take place.

As it currently exists in the community, background checking is not something that is odd, unusual or in any way foreign to most people. Most people who apply for certain licences, jobs or positions within the community or who apply to work with certain people—for example, with children—submit themselves for a background check. Of itself, this is not an invasion of privacy if it is done for the right reasons and under the right regulatory regime. If it is for good reason, then any person—be they an Australian citizen or be they somebody else—seeking to obtain licences, to obtain access to specific areas or to put themselves forward ought to allow a background check. This is particularly so if they have nothing to hide.

There are individuals who have access to areas of high risk, to places of high risk, to sensitive areas, to things that are of national security importance to this country or to substances. There are people who hold particular positions. There are a whole range of areas—we know that, for example, in the areas of shipping or aviation there are particular risks or issues of national security which exist. People working in those areas do understand the importance of security—not only national security but their own security. I think they need to be confident that the people they work with have gone through some background checking and that there is a good standard and uniform practice across the country.

As law currently exists, there is not enough consistency and these laws do not apply to enough of an extent. While a person who works under a particular act in relation to their position or who has access to certain places needs to have a background security check, that same person may not have that requirement in another area. I think that is an inadequacy within the law, and that is what we are dealing with today. For those who may be listening or have some concerns, the bill itself does not provide for the blanket application of background and security checks but allows the extension of the current legislation to move beyond just those two acts which, as I have mentioned, currently cover such checks.

Over the years—and I have been in this House for some time now—issues of national security have always drawn an intense level of debate, emotional responses and quite a lot of enthusiastic participation from a whole range of members of parliament and the community, for very good reason. When we talk about national security, it is a massive responsibility that any government takes on. Part of that massive responsibility, I believe, goes not only to what you see, read and hear out in the community and in the media but to all the practical measures a government can take in ensuring that the security needs of this nation and all of its citizens are a priority. This bill extends that principle. This bill adds to that value and that principle—a value that is shared by all Australians.

I am very satisfied—having read the explanatory memorandum, having read the bill and having looked at a number of contributions by other members, including having read the contribution by the minister—that this is a sound bill, a good way forward and an enhancement of Australia’s already rigorous national security regime, something of which we can all be proud.

When the Labor government was elected in 2007, it made a range of commitments in the area of national security and defence. It made commitments relating to our aviation facilities, people who work in aviation, our maritime industry, people who work in the maritime and transport industries, and our land transport industries.

When you are in a nation as big as Australia is, with a shoreline as extensive and uninhabited as the Australian coast and with a large mass, you need to have very strong regulation, a very well-understood regulatory regime and the appropriate powers of checking and enforcement for the officials that you appoint to carry out their responsibilities to monitor, oversee and in the end enforce your national security regime. Again, this bill does exactly that.

As we have heard from other members, there are a range of areas where this is particularly relevant. One of those particularly high-risk areas, as we have seen, is aviation. Australia is probably unique in its make-up: while we have a number of highly security-stringent capital type airports, we also have hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of small regional airports with some security risk issues. We have been working for some time to make sure that, where people work in areas where they hold people’s lives in their hands, where they deal with sensitive areas of national security and with matters that could be a national threat, appropriate licensing and appropriate mechanisms are in place to protect people—not only the people that they look after but also the people that they work with.

I am very happy with this amendment. While minor, to some extent, in what it does with the existing legislation, it is very important in that it gives the capacity for the Attorney-General’s Department, when they are carrying out their responsibilities in conducting background checks, to make sure that the background checks that are required by other authorities or under some other law are actually possible—because currently they are not—and it makes sure that under the act a background check can be identified as a requirement for people who have access to certain places, things and substances—to all those areas that we know potentially could be a matter for national security.

As I said, this bill demonstrates this government’s continuing commitment to matters of national security, which we think are not just held within the Defence strategic type portfolio. It goes very much beyond that; it goes very much to civilian activity and to what happens around our shores and on land. As we have seen in the experience overseas, these are very real, very powerful and very important matters to deal with. In many other countries that we visit either as tourists or as travellers, depending on our status there are security checks done on us. I think that is actually a reasonable thing, on the basis that all nation-states need to ensure that people who travel through their borders and use their facilities are of good character and, particularly, that people who work within sensitive areas and environments have the appropriate checks in place.

That in itself does not prevent incidents from occurring. As we have seen in the past, sometimes it very much does not prevent serious matters occurring. But what it does do is provide the authority and the legitimate power and law for this country to go about these matters in a proper way. It provides for our law enforcement agencies and our national security agencies to have at their disposal the appropriate levels of law and regulation to do their job in an effective manner.

I know the minister is very committed to this area. I know also that a lot of work has been done in the transport portfolio to make sure that the relationship between what this bill does and the laws and acts in other jurisdictions is complementary. I commend the bill to the House and congratulate the minister for the work he has done.

See this speech in context