Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 1 April this year the Daily Telegraph reported that 25 parliamentary security staff positions would be made redundant. In Senate estimates on 25 May this year, Mr Alan Thompson, Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, stated that this decision was taken prior to a comprehensive review by the Attorney-General’s Department into appropriate security levels in this House. How can the government continue to say that the 2009 budget was designed to support jobs in this country when 25 Parliamentary Staff employees will be forced into unemployment queues? As there are over 860,000 visitors to Parliament House every year, how can the government confidently say that they know that they are not reducing security to dangerous levels, particularly in light of the fact that they have not yet completed a comprehensive audit due to be released a little bit later on this year?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I could give a very simple answer: I cannot speak on behalf of the government, and, if this is the end of a very bad fortnight for me, I would hate to show bias by speaking on behalf of the government. Having made that point, it might get through to people. The question was definitely couched in terms of what the government’s response is. I cannot give a government response. But I will give an answer because they are matters that are appropriate to respond to members about. As has been revealed by the matters mentioned by the member for Macarthur, there was comment before the budget, which he related to the Daily Telegraph. I will leave it at that.

In estimates, which is the appropriate body where these questions are raised, Mr Thompson, as the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, has given responses about the matters that are under consideration by the Presiding Officers as a result of allocations in the budget. I have asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services, because it is obvious that there is an interest in these matters by members of the House and because we do not have a staffing and appropriations committee where these things can be discussed—members may take a chequered interest in what the estimates committee does—and because this is a small village where there is a lot of discussion about future proposals for this place, to inform members of the point that has been reached in the consideration of budgetary matters.

Whether or not we have an overlap between the proper investigation and implementation of the Parliamentary Security Service, there has been a longstanding discussion with people who work in that area about the way in which efficiency dividends have been applied to the parliamentary departments for over a decade and, as submissions to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit reveal, this puts the parliamentary departments in a very difficult position. This is not only because of decisions in this budget but also because of the result of historic decisions over budgets, and it is something that the Presiding Officers are trying to come to grips with, paying the greatest attention to the amount of attrition that might be required to achieve the outcomes that we need.