Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to add some comments to Senator Patrick's bill, to reiterate some of the very wise remarks that Senator Paterson made in his contribution and to put the government's position clearly with regard to this.

I think we'd all agree that Senator Patrick's interest in national security matters is laudable. In the previous parliament, he and I sat together on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which, interestingly, in the course of the last parliament, conducted a number of inquiries into the Auditor-General's work around security matters and the security framework that operates in our country. While I don't doubt or dismiss Senator Patrick's forensic approach to issues like this, I think on this matter he's wrong and the bill doesn't deserve to be supported.

I think it is worth reiterating some of the comments Senator Paterson made in his contribution. The first of those, of course, was that the government already does have extensive vetting processes in place for ministerial staff and for public servants which Senator Patrick proposes to, effectively, be extended to include ministers. Senator Patrick's bill would require the Prime Minister, within 14 days of the appointment of a minister, to direct the director-general of ASIO to investigate and provide a report on 'matters relating to security'—which is a direct quote from his proposed legislation—including the personal background and circumstances of ministers. The director-general must then provide the report to the Prime Minister within 120 days, which must be returned to ASIO upon the Prime Minister ceasing to hold that office. The existing process for ministerial staff and public servants is comprehensive and appropriate, we on the government side would argue. Depending on the level of clearance required, it can involve identity and citizenship verification, a police check, statutory declarations, referee checks, a digital footprint check, financial history check, an ASIO assessment, a security interview and a psychological assessment, so there is a very extensive list of tests that need to be applied.

However, there are very good reasons why ministers and their staff and public servants should be treated differently when it comes to security vetting. In the Westminster system, the only qualification for ministerial office is, first, election by the people to be a member of parliament and, second, an invitation by the Prime Minister to join the ministry. Along with every other member of parliament, ministers are required to publicly declare any relevant interests they may have which could influence them in the exercise of their duties. Ministers are accountable to this parliament and have to front up on a regular basis in question time, estimates and other forums to be questioned on their conduct and performance in the role. So there is already in our country a high level of transparency and with that transparency, I would argue, comes a high level of public and private accountability. Introducing a third qualification whereby ministers would be required, in effect, to pass a bureaucratic process in order to hold office undermines the Westminster system of government, and I think that was a point that Senator Farrell was trying to make in his contribution.

It is entirely appropriate, we argue, for ministerial staff and public servants to undergo security vetting because they are entering into an employment relationship. But ministers are not employees; they are public officials. With that status comes public scrutiny and accountability that cannot be equally applied to staff. I am someone, like Senator Paterson, who would argue that that public scrutiny and accountability is at a higher level and is more intense than is applied to staff. Public servants and ministerial staff do not stand for election and expose themselves to public and media scrutiny. And I think it's fair to say that, in our country, that public and media scrutiny is robust, is intense and serves the public interest well.

The burden for ensuring that ministers are qualified and appropriate for their role rightly falls to the Prime Minister. Any prime minister knows their appointments will be scrutinised through the democratic parliamentary and political processes we have in place. Of course, party leaders also must exercise good judgement in choosing their front-bench teams, and that has not always been the case. And, while I don't want to reflect too much on some of the high personalities and high stakes, this chamber has seen some people become very real and very public casualties as a result of what were private matters that were subsequently properly exposed through the media in appropriate public scrutiny. Of course, Senator Dastyari's name is one that comes to mind most immediately when we think about that set of circumstances. Yet, even in that instance, the best protection our political system has against unsuitable appointments remains public scrutiny.

To your credit, Senator Patrick, I don't mind saying that you are, have been and will continue to be a very strong advocate for increased levels of public scrutiny and increased levels of transparency. But, like I said, on this particular point I think that your concern is unwarranted and that this legislative proposal is unnecessary. A confidential security vetting process as proposed by Senator Patrick is no substitution for a robust process of public and parliamentary scrutiny and the Westminster principles of ministerial accountability.

I think this is a very critical point: some people have the false belief that, by putting something into law or regulation, you somehow improve the transparency processes in our country. I caution that. Often I hear people say, 'Oh, because it's in the law or because it's in regulation, we don't have to have the same level of intensity around our other scrutiny processes,' like the media process, like the public process or, indeed, like parliamentary scrutiny and adhering to the principles of the Westminster system of government. So I think sometimes we can find false comfort, false sanctuary in more regulations and more legislation because people then take their eye off the existing mechanisms for high levels of public scrutiny, like our Senate processes and our parliamentary processes more generally. For these reasons the government's not inclined to support this particular piece of legislation.

Although it is worth reminding the Senate that Senator Patrick's bill is before a committee. That committee process is ongoing, and, through that process, the onus will be on Senator Patrick and those people in the community who support his proposition to bring forward information that might allow people in this Senate to review their position. If the evidence is more conclusive than it currently is—I doubt that will be the outcome of the committee process but it's not my place to predict what the final outcome will be—let's see that and let's put that evidence through the proper lens of public scrutiny as well.

With regard to that, I'll leave my comments there. The bill will, no doubt, come back to the Senate after the committee has concluded its deliberations and then we'll see what the committee process has revealed.