John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the AusCheck Amendment Bill 2009. There can be no doubt that since the tragic events of 11 September 2001 there has been a heightened sense of awareness of the potential threat to public safety in a wide range of high-risk industries. The tragic attacks on the nightclubs in Bali, train stations and buses in London, hotels and train stations in Mumbai in India and the Sri Lankan cricket team’s bus in Pakistan are a stark reminder, if we ever needed one, that terrorists have no limits as to who or what they will target. While we continue to grieve for those who have lost their lives or been injured by such cowardly and evil attacks, we must remember that we truly live in a global village. A terrorist attack in any part of the world is an attack on all of us. As Australia’s National Security Adviser, Major General Duncan Lewis, has previously stated, inter alia:

The Mumbai attacks are a sober reminder that the issue of terrorism not only has not gone away, but is an enduring issue that is going to go on into the future and will be with us for some time.

The first priority of any government, more so now than ever, is defending our nation’s security, particularly given the complex range of national security challenges we face. The former United Kingdom Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, was quite right when he said:

Let us not forget that terrorism, by its methods and aims, has the potential to negate all the individual rights which we all hold so dear.

Freedom from attack or threat of attack, the maintenance of our territorial integrity, the maintenance of our political sovereignty and the preservation of hard-won freedoms are not issues to be taken lightly. There is broad consensus in the intelligence community that the greatest threat to Australia of terrorism or other impropriety is from home-grown terrorists rather than foreigners. Indeed, in our own community locals have been convicted by Australian courts for unfathomably preparing attacks in our country.

In December the Prime Minister delivered a comprehensive ministerial statement on the national security challenges facing Australia and the approach of our government in responding to those challenges. In that statement, the Prime Minister made it clear that Australia’s national security policy will continue to build on an enduring ability to create national security agencies and capabilities that work effectively together.

As recent prosecutions have demonstrated, our many security and law enforcement agencies have played a critical role in protecting us from attack. In the main, they are well-established, well-integrated, effective at collecting intelligence and effective at assessing the implications for our security environment. However, while Australia has a highly developed national security community which works well, there has always been scope to be more innovative, more coordinated and more integrated. As the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement:

In an increasingly complex and interconnected security environment, we need a more integrated national security structure that enhances national security policy coordination.

That is why the Rudd government is establishing a new level of leadership, direction and coordination among our existing intelligence agencies—with the first step being the appointment of a National Security Adviser to provide advice to the Prime Minister on all policy matters relating to the security of our nation.

The AusCheck Amendment Bill before the House tonight will also play its role in developing a more coordinated and integrated national security culture. In speaking on the AusCheck scheme, it is important to not lose sight of the context in which the scheme was originally developed. We all remember the 2005 review of airport security and policing headed by Sir John Wheeler which chronicled the many things the former government got wrong in aviation security. Following a recommendation of the Wheeler review, AusCheck was established to, among other things, enhance national security by establishing greater and conspicuous control by government of security arrangements at air and sea ports, mitigate the risk of Aviation Security Identity Cards and Maritime Security Identity Cards going to ineligible persons, and reduce duplication and improve the consistency and response time of background checking in the aviation and maritime industries.

What Sir John Wheeler intended by a centralised data collection agency was improved aviation security, which is something I have long supported. The effective screening of employees in high-risk areas, such as baggage handlers, is made all the more important when it is realised that physical security devices in airports, such as CCTV cameras, are not infallible. These highly sensitive areas require the screening of employees; this is the community expectation, as it is mine. Members who were in the House in the last parliament may recall my many questions on notice to the Minister for Justice and Customs at the time which uncovered the fact that, on at least three occasions at Sydney International Airport, CCTV cameras in the baggage make-up area were found to be pointing towards the wall or out of focus. Senator Ellison, who was the minister at the time, certainly did not deal with that issue seriously, in my view, because we never got to the bottom of how cameras mysteriously were turned towards the wall or were put out of focus.

We also remember the allegations of a drug syndicate running out of the airport, incidents of corrupt behaviour by a baggage handler, the arrest of three airline employees for narcotic offences and the disclosure of a Customs report which detailed concerns about convicted criminals holding sensitive positions in airports. Suffice to say the comprehensive vetting of employees by a coordinated unit could not have come soon enough for members of the public. The issue for them was one not just of terrorism, as important as it is, but of the potential for dishonesty in the handling of their personal items.

AusCheck provides a statutory framework to help identify high-risk individuals who should not be granted security clearance to enter restricted areas. It does so by coordinating extensive background checks using state police, Immigration, ASIO and AFP records and resources. I certainly do not casually gloss over the potential invasiveness of the assessments, particularly given their ability to impact on people’s livelihoods. That said, it is critically important that people in sensitive areas or positions are properly and thoroughly checked in the interests of the safety of everyone. I am sure the assessments are not conducted lightly but are done so in a manner that is in keeping with the public’s expectations that leading edge security arrangements are in place to protect them in all vulnerable areas or situations. That is why I support the amendments to enable AusCheck to provide centralised background checking in relation to a wider range of national security regulatory schemes other than the aviation and maritime sectors that it already covers.

It is prudent to also note the comments, or intention, of the Attorney-General’s Department in 2007 during the time of the passage of the original AusCheck Bill, when it stated:

When government directed that AusCheck be established, it was in the context of a direction that a scheme be established to centralise the aviation and maritime scheme but also that the Commonwealth was conscious that a significant amount of background checking occurred within the Commonwealth and that there might be opportunities to minimise duplication and improve efficiencies by creating a framework within AusCheck that could subsequently, after the aviation and maritime schemes had been settled, move on and look at other opportunities for background checking that was occurring within the Commonwealth.

That was one sentence, believe it or not! The A-G’s Department should be flogged for writing such long sentences. That is, in essence, the framework that this amendment now achieves.

It is important to note that this amendment only provides a framework to facilitate the extension of AusCheck’s background-checking functions to aviation and maritime transport. If any government seeks to actually use the AusCheck national security back-ground check in a new context, it will have to separately develop the legislative or other regulatory provisions to transfer those functions to AusCheck. This bill merely paves the way for AusCheck to take on additional integrated and coordinated background-checking functions, in other high-risk industries, under new legislation in the future—should a government be inclined to do so.

It is not hard to envisage other high-risk contexts where there could be a perceived national security risk and when it would be in keeping with the public’s expectations to implement well-integrated and well-coordinated background checks on the employees involved. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum makes note of a Council of Australian Government review of hazardous materials, which has identified access to sensitive biological materials as an area where activities could be regulated to further address national security risks. Of course, any future legislative instrument that compels background checking through AusCheck will need to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the safety of the community. I trust that such concerns will be taken into account if or when those legislative or regulatory provisions are drafted.

Our world is certainly in a significant period of transition, and we will need to be adept at adjusting our policies and capabilities in order to protect our country from unprecedented challenges and threats. The AusCheck service has gained widespread acceptance across the Australian aviation and maritime industries—which is a good thing—and it has also achieved results in improving the speed, reliability and consistency of background checking. I am supportive of the amendments in this bill, which will enable the government to build expertise in background checking for other systems and processes, particularly where there is a strong community interest in such checking. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context