Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the commencement of my contribution to this debate on the AusCheck Amendment Bill 2009, I want to commend not only the minister for bringing this legislation to the parliament but also the previous speaker for his in-depth, analytical and very fulsome contribution to this debate. This amendment may, on first sight, appear to be a very minor amendment to the legislation. By listening to the member for Oxley, we are able to understand that many complex issues and nuances are associated with it and that it is a very important piece of legislation that we have before us today.

I rarely speak on security legislation but on this occasion I feel very comfortable in supporting the legislation that we have before the parliament. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the AusCheck Act 2007 to provide a capacity under the act for background checks to be carried out for national security purposes. When the original act was introduced I did have some concerns about how it would be implemented and administered, but the concerns I had have been proven to be unfounded. In this amendment there is no requirement for any person to have a background check; no background check will be imposed as a result of the amendment to the act.

Rather the amendment will provide a bare capacity for the Attorney-General’s Department to carry out its responsibility to conduct background checks that are required under the authority of some other law other than the very narrow background checks that are currently allowed. A background check under the act could then be identified as a requirement for access to places, things, substances and employment positions as specified by a regulatory scheme. The bill will also amend the act to authorise the use of identified verification information where it is required to verify the particular individual. The current act only allows for background checks for the purpose of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. What I see is that this legislation brings some consistency to the AusCheck Act 2007.

I must say that at the time the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act was introduced in 2003 I did have some serious concerns about that legislation. When I spoke to that legislation I put forward the argument that the legislation did not properly coordinate maritime security, with the activities of other relevant authorities not being included. I felt at that time that it failed to communicate with all key stakeholders and I felt that the government of the day had failed to properly recognise that the Maritime Union had a role in security. It failed to work with that union to ensure that all aspects of the legislation were considered. So I felt that the union that represented the workers who were actually subject to security checks, and who had some concerns about security on the waterfront, was not properly consulted. Because of that, I had a problem with the legislation and I felt that there was some conflict between the departmental secretary’s powers to issue orders and the powers of the harbourmaster.

When I look back to that legislation and consider the lack of consultation, and maybe some controversy that surrounded it, I feel a lot more comfortable with the legislation that we are debating today. In that particular legislation there was a report that dealt with national security. Under that heading of national security it noted that there were inconsistencies between the policy on coastal shipping of the government at that time and the actual implementation of the security requirements in that legislation. I went on to talk about the fact that we had foreign flagged ships circumnavigating the coast of Australia. I think an issue that you can raise in relation to that is the current oil spill in Queensland and the fact that the information that needed to be provided to both the Queensland government and the federal government was not provided at the time. That highlights that there was inconsistency in that particular legislation and its failure to address some of those issues. It is also important to note that there were very different standards of requirement in the legislation that is referred to in the AusCheck Amendment Bill—this maritime transport legislation. There were very definite inconsistencies between the Australian scenario and the legislation in the US, where they had a stronger security regime.

The reason I highlight inconsistencies and the reason I highlight that legislation is that it is linked to this legislation. The one point I would like to make about this particular legislation we are debating in the House today is that it actually adds consistency. There will be no requirement for any person to actually have a background check, as I mentioned earlier—and that will not be imposed as a result of the amendment of the act. That makes me feel very comfortable because that is the grey area where I have always had some concerns in relation to security issues. Rather the amendment will actually provide a bare capacity for the Attorney-General’s Department to carry out its responsibility to conduct background checks that are required under the authority of some other law. A background check under the act could then be identified as a requirement for access to places, things, substances or employment positions as specified by the regulatory scheme.

The bill will also amend the act to authorise the use of identity verification information where it is required to verify the identity of a particular individual. These are all very sound measures. The adoption by the Commonwealth and the states of a national security background check as the basis of a prerequisite for a licence or other authorisation has been identified as a means to achieve consistency in relation to the regulation of access to certain places and things, and I think anything that will add to that consistency is worthy of support.

The bill marks an important step in the development of background checks for national security purposes and demonstrates the Commonwealth’s continued commitment to meeting national security policy objectives. National security and the fact that the world that we live in today is not quite as safe as it once was are of concern to a number of Australians, and these national security checks will certainly put some people’s minds at rest. The bill will provide for the Attorney-General’s Department to conduct background checks to support regulatory regimes involved in identifying individuals who could present a national security risk if allowed to access high-risk places, things, substances or positions. These details are outlined in the explanatory memorandum.

Before I went through the details in the explanatory memorandum, I did have some concerns about this bill. But, after going through the explanatory memorandum, the concerns that I had were allayed. In fact, the explanatory memorandum not only allayed the concerns I had but actually convinced me this legislation is very worthy of support. The fact that there was not a requirement for a person to have a background check allayed a number of fears that I had about this change, as did the fact that background checks would be carried out by the Attorney-General’s Department, which would conduct them in a very responsible way. The explanatory memorandum highlights:

The amendments will also include specific provisions to authorise and protect biometric information about an individual where this is required in order to complete a background check.

It is vitally important that this security is in place. Sometimes it is necessary to confirm a person’s identity so the police can distinguish between individuals with the same name and similar dates of birth.

I was confronted in my electorate with a case of an extremely law-abiding citizen who was working for a government department. When a police check was requested by the government department before allowing her to move from casual contract work into permanent employment, she was identified as a person of quite a dubious nature. The check revealed that she had been involved in numerous cases of fraud and other things which were very foreign to this law-abiding person. The fact was that there was another person that had the same name and same date of birth. It took a lot of work by me and my electorate office to clear this person’s name, but now she is a happy employee of the government department. That shows that these things can happen and that there is quite often a need to collect this kind of information.

Regarding the collection of this information, the explanatory memorandum says:

… this information will be (i) afforded all of the additional protections given to other AusCheck personal information; and (ii) not be available for any purpose other than a further background check.

I think that that is very important. It goes on to say:

As a consequence of the inclusion of a capacity to conduct national security background checks, the Bill also includes amendments to the provisions that give authority for AusCheck to provide an online verification service.

The online verification service which is currently restricted to aviation security and maritime security cards and which was debated when it was introduced in the previous parliament—and I referred to that legislation earlier in my contribution to the debate—will be extended under this legislation, which I really do believe is worthy of support from both sides of the parliament.

In his second reading speech, the Attorney-General highlighted the benefits of the AusCheck legislation passed by the parliament in September 2007 in maintaining security within this parliament. He went on to talk about how this legislation expands those checks. The Attorney-General is a person who is totally committed to ensuring personal rights are protected. He highlighted that there would not be a requirement for a person to have a background check. He talked about the existing systems, which are also mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, saying:

… the bill will authorise and protect biometric information about an individual …

Those are all aspects of this legislation that needed to be in place for me to feel comfortable supporting it. He also said:

… the positioning of AusCheck as a centralised background checking service for the Commonwealth is in keeping with the public’s expectation that adequate cost-effective security arrangements are in place.

Greater access by Commonwealth agencies to AusCheck’s resources reduces duplication of—

checks that currently take place. The Attorney-General also said that the bill provides the legislative framework for more efficient background-checking schemes.

I congratulate the Attorney-General on the legislation that he has brought to the parliament today and I congratulate the previous speakers in the debate. This is legislation that I can support, and I feel confident to do so as I think it has the right checks and balances to ensure that it does not lead to an abuse of power. In actual fact it contributes very much to the security of our nation and will ensure that the checks that are conducted are conducted for the appropriate purposes. It will be of great benefit to our nation.

See this speech in context