John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too would like to speak briefly to the annual report of the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee. I commend the report to interested senators. It deals with three areas: the security area, which Senator Ray has been addressing; the issue of the recent restructure of the Department of Parliamentary Services; and an issue relating to the appropriations to parliamentary departments.

The security issue is one of genuine concern to members, senators and all those who work in this building. I raised at a number of recent Senate estimates hearings my concerns about the capacity of some 7,000-plus photographic pass holders to access the slip roads—in other words, to use a photographic pass to lower the bollards. I remind the Senate that at the estimates round on 22 May I asked the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services this question:

So anybody who holds a photographic Parliament House pass can lower the bollards?

Ms Penfold responded to me:

That is right.

The questioning then went on:

Senator FAULKNER—Anybody?

Ms Penfold—Anybody who has one of those passes.

Senator FAULKNER—How many of those pass holders are there?

Ms Penfold—It is about 7,000, but I will get the exact number.

The precise figure is around 7,000: it is precisely 7,520 as we speak. The questioning went on:

Senator FAULKNER—So you are telling me that there are 7,000 passes washing around that can lower the bollards?

Ms Penfold—That is right.

I then said—and this is what I really want to focus on:

... I thought the original understanding was that there were going to be very severe limitations—Commonwealth drivers and the like—on who would have the capacity to use passes that could lower the bollards.

Ms Penfold—That was the initial thought.

And so the questions and answers went on. It is very hard to justify the expenditure on security measures around this building if some of the impact and effect of those security measures—in this case, the effect of the bollards—can be limited by the fact that 7½ thousand photographic pass holders can use their photographic passes to lower the bollards. This is a major problem. It is hard enough anyway to justify expenditure on security. This has been an ongoing debate, and it is always difficult. There are issues in relation to the fact that the parliament itself has had to find its own moneys, its own savings, to fund the security works around the building. But when you have 7½ thousand-plus passes that can negate the impact of these security works—in this case, can be used to retract the bollards—there is a problem. It needs to be addressed. It has been identified now for some time, and I would commend questioning on this in Senate estimates committees to anyone who is interested in this particular issue. I have had concerns for a long time. Senator Ray has had concerns about this for a long time. To be fair, government senators and others have expressed these concerns inside the Appropriations and Staffing Committee and beyond. They need to be addressed.

One of the difficulties in these sorts of debates is to publicly deal with some of the security problems around a building like this. But this has been a publicly identified problem, and it needs to be addressed. It is a challenge for the Presiding Officers and for the senior staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services, but it is a challenge that needs to be met.

We know that, on 22 August this year, Parliament Drive is no longer going to be a two-way street; it is going to revert to a one-way drive around Parliament House. That will have certain benefits, and there will be a disbenefit, as there always is in these things. It is going to take some people an awful lot longer to come into Parliament House and an awful lot longer for some people to exit. That consequence is inevitable when these sorts of changes are made.

I pointed out, and I note it here again, that when I first suggested that members, senators, staff and people who work in the building were going to be significantly affected by these changes—and I think everybody accepts that that is the case; we can have an argument about whether it is warranted or not but there are real safety concerns in relation, particularly, to the dropping off of people on Parliament Drive that properly those in authority have taken account of—I did raise the question as to whether it would affect all those who worked in the building. I did express concerns that it seemed that special arrangements were being made so that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, would not be affected by Parliament Drive becoming one-way.

I am sure everyone is really pleased to know that there has been expenditure of public moneys, and I do not know how much at this stage but I certainly intend to find out, to ensure that the Prime Minister, when he takes the short trip from the Lodge—he does not live there that often, as we know; he lives in Kirribilli House, courtesy of the taxpayers—to the ministerial wing at Parliament House he will not have to go right around the building like everybody else, because the slip-roads at the ministerial entrance have been changed. The current exit road will now be an entrance road so the Prime Minister will not be inconvenienced; and the current entrance road will now be an exit road so the Prime Minister will not be inconvenienced. I am very pleased that that is the case; I would not want to see the Prime Minister having to drive all the way around Parliament Drive, a couple of kilometres, coming in the morning or leaving at night, like everybody else. I am so pleased that he will not be inconvenienced, but so disappointed—