Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to contribute to this important debate as well. I am actually a member of the Selection of Bills Committee, and last night, when this particular item came up on the schedule of bills for its fate to be determined, I moved that this bill be referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and for report by 2 March. It was an extremely usual kind of thing to do with a bill of this nature, and I was surprised when the government indicated that for some reason they believe this bill had to be dealt with immediately. There is no urgency to this bill. In fact, this bill should and must be subject to the scrutiny of the appropriate Senate committee because the bill deals with the matter of the security of the people who work in this building, and indeed with the security of the people who visit us in this Parliament House.

This bill, if passed, will change the membership of the Security Management Board, which is a legislated authority which advises the presiding officers of the parliament about matters to do with security. In the recent past, of course, we have had some very interesting advice from the presiding officers about matters of security. I have to say, as the Opposition Whip in this place, that one of the things the senators who work here talk to me about often is issues of security, and they, of course, are concerned not just for themselves but for the guests and other people who come to visit them. So, if this committee is dealing with the important issue of security—and we know that this building has been on a heightened security alert for some period of time—it is entirely appropriate that the right Senate committee gets an opportunity to look at the actual implications of this legislation, if it is enacted. It is a simple request. It should be examined by the relevant Senate committee so that, if there are any unexpected outcomes or potential problems within this legislation, these can be identified by that committee and recommendations can be made. That committee, which is chaired by the government, could make recommendations to the Senate about any changes that may need to be made to this very, very important piece of legislation.

It is not just a simple piece of legislation. It is not just a 'tick and flick' piece of legislation. It came to the Senate—we know it passed through the House of Representatives, but they do not have the inquiry process that we have here in the Senate, where we are very used to looking at what seem to be innocuous pieces of legislation. This seems to be innocuous, but we will not know until it is has been properly examined by the finance and public administration committee of this Senate. As I said, when we are dealing with matters of security, it is very important to take the time to ensure that legislation is actually going to deliver what you set out for it to deliver. There are numerous instances in this place, and it happened when we were in government as well. You would think a piece of legislation was right, you would think the drafters had got it right and you would think there were no unintended consequences of that legislation—but when the Senate committees had a look at it they would find that there could be unintended consequences. It could be that those consequences would be pointed out by witnesses who would be called to give evidence to a Senate committee looking at this. We are not asking for anything extraordinary. It is a very timely reporting date of 2 March—early next year. Hopefully, if the legislation were up to scratch, it would then be passed by the Senate, as it should be.

All we are asking for is normal process and normal practice. All we are asking is that in the matter of security—for heaven's sake, Senators on that side—be responsible, be reasonable and act in the best interest of everybody who works in this place. (Time expired)