Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

I think we have already had the debate on this matter, but let me just say that significant resources have been provided by the government to combat terrorism. The aviation and maritime sectors, in particular, have benefited from major investment and rapid change designed to build on existing security arrangements. More vigilant background checking for people who have access to secure areas at airports and marine ports has been a critical part of these arrangements.

The reason that we have created AusCheck is to improve the rigour and coordination of the process. With the passage of this legislation, AusCheck will be ready to commence operations, as intended, on 1 July. For the aviation and maritime industries, this translates to a more efficient and reliable service. AusCheck will do away with the current paper based scheme. Instead, it will have a state-of-the-art computer database with up-to-date information on people who apply for and are issued with a security card.

It should be expected—and the government fully anticipates—that once it is operational there will be demand for its services amongst other sectors where there is a strong community interest in background checking, such as where people are responsible for the care of children and the elderly. My firm hope is that, when this parliament is presented with an amendment to the AusCheck Act to add new background-checking schemes to AusCheck’s services, it deals with the amendment in a timely manner, so that the government can remain responsive to industry needs and community expectations.

I am pleased that, with the passage of this bill, the government has again added to our domestic security arsenal while at the same time providing a more efficient and reliable service to industry.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Homeland Security) Share this | Link to 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?

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The fact is that there is a requirement for reporting to the parliament. There is an annual report of the department. My colleague in the other place—and I am surprised that the member did not know of this—gave an assurance that this information, in the form in which it has been outlined, will be included in the annual report. It is a question of whether you have a multiplicity of reports or whether you include it in the relevant statute. We have no problem with the information being made available to the parliament, and more broadly, in the annual report. We do not regard it as being inappropriate. That is the point that I am making.

In fact, a number of my colleagues were interested in this issue. You may imagine that we discussed it; we did. My colleagues who are on the committee tend to be on my backbench committee. If people have an interest, they carry it through from parliamentary committees to party committees. My colleagues accepted the explanation that we did not think that it was necessary to put in a separate reporting requirement.

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

I am pleased that the Attorney has placed on the record the government’s commitment to provide these details in the annual report. However, it makes it even more bewildering. If the government has no objection to the disclosure of this information, why leave it to the good grace of the minister for the time being? Those of us who have been in this parliament for some time and involved in any particular policy area over a period of time tend to have a close look at annual reports for data when they come out. I have to tell you that the quality and consistency of detail provided in annual reports changes dramatically. I take no comfort, frankly, out of a commitment from the Attorney-General that the annual report is going to include this. I take him at his word that it will be in the annual report due out later this year. But whether or not that is going to be in the annual report after that will very much depend upon who the Attorney-General of the day is.

After we win the election, I suspect your successor as Attorney-General would be glad to give the commitment. But you might find that we would be equally glad to provide the commitment in black and white. There is no reason why, if the government wants this material to be made available as the Attorney said, he should oppose this amendment. It is not good enough to leave it to the whim of whoever happens to be authorising next year’s annual report.

If there was a government-wide code for how annual reports were to be constructed and that was public, that might provide some basis for us to think that there was substance in it. But you only need to go through the Defence annual reports over the last 10 years that this government has been in office to quickly grasp how differently matters are reported. The budget papers that the Treasurer provides on budget night are now hugely different and in many ways far less informative. Annual reports are in the same vein. If there is no objection to this information being provided then I say to the government and the Attorney-General: do the right thing. Pick up the recommendation of the committee and put it in the legislation.

If you think reporting twice a year is too onerous—I do not; I think there is a safeguard in that—then change it and make it once a year. But do not leave it to the good grace or whim of whoever happens to be the Attorney-General. An annual report is far too imprecise a document, with no particular parameters.

I have not done the research, but now that you have raised it I will go back and look at the last few annual reports from the Attorney-General. I wonder how detailed and consistent they have been. I have not looked at them, so maybe the Attorney-General will be able to smile and say his are the ones that have been consistently good and detailed. I doubt it, but I can say without equivocation that annual reports of departments that I do regularly go through are not consistent. They change from time to time. To have the Attorney-General expect this parliament to accept that as in any way a satisfactory response to the Senate committee recommendations is wrong. It may have been something that placated his backbench, but it does not placate the parliament.

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

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

The bells having been rung—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lock the doors. Lock the doors!

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just note that I asked for the doors to be locked but they were not locked immediately. There is one member who is in here for the division that should not have been if the doors had been locked at the time. Minister, I think you might go.

The member for Groom then left the chamber.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was looking at the doors when that happened. If the attendant is late in closing the door, it is not the responsibility of the member—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very simple situation. I was watching the doors; I had a better aspect on it than you. I asked for the doors to be locked; I asked again for them to be locked. The minister has done the right thing—a thing that should have been done in the past.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hockey interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we will just go with the rest of the procedure; you are wrong.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Bevis’s) be agreed to

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, during the course of the last division the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources came through the doors while they were still open. The doors were still open so that is how he got through the doors. Without any disrespect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or any inference for the attendant at hand, can I ask that the Speaker provide advice to the House on the responsibilities when a member does come through the doors? My understanding is that, if the doors are open, a member is entitled to go through the doors. If the doors are closed, of course they cannot. But, if a member does go through the doors into the division and is then asked to leave, I think that is an incorrect ruling. I know you did it in good faith, but I think the matter needs to be clarified for other members because it is a very important matter.

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

I thank the member for North Sydney and I will give a very simple response.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just clarify. I ask for you, the Deputy Speaker, to refer the matter to the Speaker.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the member for North Sydney, I am at present the acting Speaker. The ruling I made was a ruling regarding the minister for industry attending or not attending this division. I did it for a reason and a purpose. Previously, we have had a series of incidents when not one member but many members have forced their way into a division because the doors have been kept open for longer than they should have been. I clearly called for the doors to be closed. They should be closed rapidly. That instruction to those who work in this place should be actively carried out. There was a slowness in the closing of the doors on the part of the person who closed them. The minister for industry, no doubt, heard what I was saying and that is why he left. He knew that the doors had been kept open for longer after the call had been made. That is why I acted in the way that I did.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not need members butting in on all sides in relation to this. The Speaker at any time can take action or talk to me about what I have done. But, acting in the place of the Speaker, I made that determination. It is the correct determination and I stand by it.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Perhaps the member opposite did not recognise someone from the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party being honourable. That is the explanation. The minister fessed up and walked out. He clearly concurred and complied with your ruling.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it would assist the House if I simply noted here, as I noted at the time, that the minister of his own volition did what he did, noting what the circumstances were prior to that. I think that was an honourable and sensible thing do. I think the matter is now at an end. If anyone wants to take it up with the Speaker, they are at liberty to do so. I think we should get on with the business of the House.