Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the annual report for 2005-06 of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This annual report goes to one area that I want to cover today and that is the key responsibility for security in this building. The responsibility for security lies essentially with the Presiding Officers and the Department of Parliamentary Services. One of the few windows for parliamentarians to supervise this is the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. You will know, Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins, that no such committee exists on the other side of this building. The other chamber has never replicated the initiative of having a staffing and appropriations committee. My close friend and colleague Mr Roger Price, the Chief Opposition Whip, has on several occasions suggested to the House of Representatives that they set up a committee to deal with staffing and appropriation matters. That has not yet been successfully achieved and therefore it really does devolve to senators to have their input at this particular level. We prefer to have it at this level rather than at the estimates committee because you can have a fairly frank exchange of views.

We have made a lot of progress, I think, as a parliament in protecting this as an institution. The building itself is quite iconic and will be a natural target for potential terrorists at some stage into the future. We know that. There is no secret about that, and so a variety of measures have been taken to make sure that this building is far more secure than it once was. We will always have in mind that we want this to be a people’s building. We want people to have access to the building, to have access to their politicians and to be able to scrutinise the activity of their politicians. We do not want to do anything that totally inhibits that. On the other hand we do not want to be blase. I do find at times that some of my colleagues on both sides of the political spectrum are blase about security matters. I have to make the point that over 3,000 other people work in this building, so it is not a question of whether politicians will be vulnerable to potential future terrorist activity. The real point is that we have a duty and an obligation to protect the 3,000 people who work in this building. It cannot be just dismissed. It must be a duty of politicians.

We have seen a whole range of changes with personnel deployed and the wall built around Parliament House to stop a vehicle coming illegally into the building. But there are probably two remaining issues that we want to see addressed. Of course we know on 22 August the parliamentary road around this building is going to become one-way. That is quite a sensible development given all the other things that have been done around the building. But one of the things that have disturbed the opposition is that we were strong supporters of protecting the three slipways to the ministerial wing, to the House of Representatives and to the Senate side—very strong supporters because that was a very vulnerable area of the building. When the bollards were put in we supported the putting in of the bollards and we have defended the expense incurred by putting them in.

But one thing we never anticipated, by the way, was that 7,520 passes would enable access to the slip-roads. We always considered it was going to be a much, much smaller figure. That alone I think is a potential security breach into the future. A lost card et cetera with 7,000 passes floating around could well mean that the building becomes vulnerable. Work has been underway in the parliamentary services department and a submission is being made to the Presiding Officers to reduce that amount of access, and in some cases the pass will only give you access to one of the slipways rather than all three. But I think access should be limited to just two groups: the first group is Comcar and the second is the diplomatic corps. Essentially that is almost happening in a de facto way, with some exceptions, but it is a potentiality into the future that I am concerned about, so I would like to see it restricted to those two groups. You do not have to give the diplomatic corps passes. The security officer that is constantly outside the building can, by prearrangement, let the bollards down for the consular corps, and Comcars will have their own entry and exit through the bollards. That was the original intention, or what we understood was the original intention. It was never intended that there be 7,520 potential entrants.

The second concern I have is the pick-up and drop-off for staff. We have had this under consideration for over two or three years and it has always been pushed back. Everything else has been solved et cetera. We are told by the parliamentary services department that everyone can go to the public car park and be picked up and dropped off. That goes against human nature; that is not going to happen. We have tried to point out that people are not going to walk hundreds of metres through the basement areas, dodging forklifts and other impediments, to get to that car park if they are on the Senate or the Reps side. By the way, at the moment if you do go and get picked up on the parliamentary road, you go down the steps and you wait there in totally non-secure conditions, exposed to the weather elements et cetera. Even politicians have to do it if it is a hire car in a non-sitting period, because they cannot get through the bollards.

Treating staff in this particular way to me is not acceptable. We must find an alternative. Several of us have suggested the alternative and that is using the Senate car park as the pick-up and drop-off point. That is going to be examined again, as I understand it, by the Department of Parliamentary Services and I hope we get a report soon. There are some objections to that. What is to stop people parking there illegally? We just follow the practice of any other restricted parking area and have a tow away policy. So if people illegally park there, like anywhere else in Australia, you get towed away and you then have to pay the fee—$300, $400 or $500—to retrieve your car. That soon stops it. The second argument is that if you do not have the boom gates maybe it will become a little more vulnerable to terrorists. I tell you what—Senator Faulkner and I could run through those two props that are keeping traffic out at the moment, let alone a terrorist who could just drive straight through. We know that.

There is a third, more serious, thing that we will contemplate. There have been various studies done as to vulnerability when it comes to bomb testing. That, again, has to be revalidated before we can properly proceed with a proposal to use the Senate basement. But remember this: it is undercover, it is accessible from the building and we could put in a waiting room or put chairs in the room that abuts that particular car park. Even though we have given some consideration to clearing the 70 car park spots out there, it is our judgement—Senator Faulkner’s, mine and that of a few others—that you can still make it a drop-off and take-off point without having to get rid of any of that car parking.

I do urge the Presiding Officers, especially the Senate President, to give this proposal serious consideration. We are often judged by how we treat and deal with our staff. To have them going across that slipway road and down the stairs in all weathers and at all times of day and night is, to me, not acceptable. We are not being asked to give up our own car-parking opportunities in the Senate car park. We are just being asked to share them. It is not much of the sacrifice for senators and senior staff in this building to do that, if it proves to be viable from a security point of view. I always put that caveat on. If it can be shown to me and to the rest of the committee that this is not a safe option from a bomb point of view then we will change our view. But it does have another corollary, of course. If it is not safe now, from a bomb point of view, then unfortunately we are going to have to spend more money to protect the Senate basement area, and in fact all basements in this building if that happens to be the case.

This report is very brief on detail, quite properly, with regard to these matters. We are going to keep a watching brief on this particular area. We are going to continue to support the Presiding Officers, who are often derided for the security measures. It is very easy to make cheap shots about the wall around the building or the bollards or anything else. We are not going to join that. We are, in a bipartisan way, going to support the Presiding Officers to protect the staff who work in this building.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the Treasurer?

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

We know how disappointed the Treasurer is, but let us not go there, Senator Ray; I am trying to be positive. When I originally focused on this at Senate estimates committees it was denied that this would be the impact of these changes. But we know now, for sure and certain, that everyone else is going to cop a little bit of extra time in travel, coming to or leaving Parliament House, and that may be justified. It certainly will mean some additional safety for staff being dropped off—I acknowledge that. But I am sure that we are all relieved that the Prime Minister is not going to be affected in any way.

Finally, I join with my colleague Senator Ray in focusing the attention of the parliament on the fact that the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee does an excellent job in these areas. A lot of this work, particularly in relation to security matters, is done behind closed doors. But we do have accountability mechanisms in the Senate in relation to the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services. There is one department, the Department of the House of Representatives, that has no scrutiny at all. There is no review of that department at all, and there has not been for the 105 years of the existence of the Commonwealth of Australia, and it is about time there was. (Time expired)

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner, do you wish to keep this report on the Notice Paper?

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

Do you think anyone else would like to speak on it?

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We could speak again tomorrow night.

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

Because there is such interest in my remarks, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.