Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure indeed to be able to speak to the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010, because it is legislation which I think appeals to the ‘better angels’ of most senators. Sadly, in this place there are not too many occasions when we all feel comfortable about the fact that we are supporting legislation which has an element of great idealism. I think this particular legislation contains that element of idealism, so I am particularly pleased to speak to it today.

The broad idea of an Australian civilian corps, I assume, is based on the great American idea of a peace corps—which, as you will recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, was an idea that emerged from the Kennedy campaign for election to the presidency in 1959-60 and became rapidly an idea which many people embraced as something that reflected the idealism of the American people and that could make a very practical contribution to America’s role in the international arena.

We all recall Mr Sargent Shriver, who became the first director—and was a distinguished director—of the American Peace Corps. He was a Kennedy brother-in-law, as I remember. When he died, I think last year, many of his obituaries drew attention to his very distinguished service as the senior official in the American Peace Corps and went on at great length about his contribution and the great success that he made of the Peace Corps.

The Australian Civilian Corps has, it is fair to say, rather more prosaic origins. It comes, as I understand it, from the government’s 2020 Summit in April 2008 and was announced by former Prime Minister Rudd in October 2009. I do not think it is being churlish to say that this is one of the better ideas from the 2020 Summit. Indeed, it is one of the few ideas that have found their way into legislation. Regardless of its origins, I think we can recognise that this is a good idea and a strong idea, and it is one that the coalition is very pleased to support. It recognises and highlights the reality that when natural disasters and crises occur around the world, particularly when there are conflicts involved, assistance to alleviate human suffering is often a vital requirement. As we contemplate events around Australia—although this bill is directed to external activity—and think about the earthquake in Christchurch and the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan, and the terrible suffering that those events have created, we see that they underscore the assistance that the Australian Civilian Corps will provide to people who may need it.

Civilian assistance early on in a crisis, and after an event or a tragedy of the kinds that have occurred recently in our region, often helps with rebuilding. It helps to stabilise a situation and can give great encouragement to countries when they need to recover. The idea that there ought to be a discrete and specific Australian corps, a scheme in which idealistic Australians can be involved in helping recovery, is a very good one. It is a practical and innovative way of addressing what is clearly, and sadly, an important growing international need.

The report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on this bill supported the bill enthusiastically. It was a unanimous report. It made a series of recommendations about the way in which the bill could be improved. The government has accepted some of those, and I welcome that, but it has chosen not to accept others. I will say a bit more about that in a moment, but there are two concerns that I want to raise in the early stages of my remarks which reflect general concerns within the coalition about the bill. One relates to the direct financial impact that the bill might have. The explanatory memorandum notes that there is no direct financial impact. On the other hand, in AusAID’s Focus Online there is a note that $52 million will be provided for the rapid deployment of Australian civilians into overseas disaster and conflict affected countries. That seems to be inconsistent with the declarations within the explanatory memorandum. Perhaps the minister would care to make an observation about that when he makes his closing remarks. I note that, in his contribution, Senator Back made the point that it is vital that those who might commit themselves to this task be provided with a great deal of security. We are particularly concerned to know how the security of the civilians who sign on to the corps will be provided—how they will be protected during the course of their operations. That seems to me to be a vital concern.

The second broad question relates to a potential conflict of interest in the legislation. The legislation is cast in a way whereby the Director-General of AusAID will primarily be the responsible party. He will create a register, as I understand it, of those who wish to volunteer for this kind of activity. The legislation makes clear—and I do not have any particular objection to this—that people employed by AusAID could in fact become part of the Civilian Corps. That makes a great deal of sense, because there is a tremendous amount of expertise within AusAID that could be very useful in circumstances of the kind we are contemplating in this piece of legislation.

None of that concerns me terribly much. What does raise some questions is the matter of who determines whether the person deployed overseas goes as an employee of AusAID or as a member of the ACC and what kinds of implications might follow from the fact that an AusAID person is taken offline—what sort of impact might it have on their responsibilities within AusAID itself. It seems to me that the director-general is potentially in a difficult situation. He—or she, but for the moment he—is in a situation where he has to make decisions as to whether having AusAID employees is in the interests of his agency or whether to have people with similar kinds of expertise as volunteers on the register. These are matters that need a bit of clarification.

The Senate report made 11 recommendations, as I noted. I was very delighted to see that the government at least fully accepted four of them. It partially accepted two of the recommendations but rejected four of the recommendations. I want to spend a few moments making a few remarks on some of the recommendations that were rejected or partially rejected. Regarding the first recommendation of the report, the committee was of the view that the legislation should include a statement on the humanitarian and developmental purpose for establishing the Australian Civilian Corps. This recommendation was made by several of the submissions to the committee, most notably by World Vision. It commended itself to the committee because this is an exciting new venture that deserves some sort of clarity of statement about the intention behind the legislation. Why the government would reject that possibility is somewhat confusing to me. I would have thought it was something the government would readily agree to.

The second recommendation from the report, which was only partially agreed, related to values of the ACC in relation to the Australian Public Service. I do not often find myself in this place supporting the suggestions of the CPSU, or indeed any other union within the organisation. But the CPSU made a recommendation to the Senate committee suggesting that a stronger connection should be made within the legislation between the ACC values and those of the Australian Public Service. The committee supported that suggestion, and I think it is something that the government might have turned its mind to.

Recommendation 5 was not agreed to by the government. It relates to what I call the no disadvantage test that might be applied in these circumstances. The committee recommended that the legislation ensure that members of the Public Service, or indeed other employees, would not be disadvantaged in terms of their entitlements should they decide to commit themselves to an ACC deployment. It seems to me fundamental and without contest that, if an idealistic Australian chooses to make a commitment of this kind and chooses to become involved in the ACC, they should not suffer any kind of work or professional disadvantage in doing so. The committee was very strongly of the view that this was something that ought to be included in the legislation and, sadly, the government has chosen not to accept that recommendation.

Finally, and along much the same lines, recommendation 8 of the committee’s report suggested that the bill contain provisions governing the protection of whistleblower rights, prohibition on patronage and favouritism and promotion of employment equity. This is one of the recommendations which was only partially accepted by the government. The recommendation in relation to patronage and favouritism was accepted. The government chose not to accept the recommendation with regard to whistleblowers or the promotion of employment equity. There is an explanation in the government’s response. I do not find it particularly persuasive. I would have thought that these were elementary requirements that might well have been accepted and found favour with the government in the implementation of the legislation.

With those reservations, I say that the coalition enthusiastically supports this piece of legislation. Senator Back, in his contribution to the debate, made some very good points. I am not in a position to comment on the observations he made in the earlier part of his speech with regard to viruses of one kind or another, but I am sure they were very incisive and insightful and should also recommend this legislation to the government. I suggest that the observations I have made about the concerns we have about the bill should also be taken seriously in resolving this legislation.