George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ellison, Minister for Justice and Customs. Can the minister confirm evidence given last night by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty, that there is $275 million in unspent money accumulated by the AFP? Is it true much of this money, which equates to over one-quarter of the AFP’s annual budget, was originally allocated to be spent on new measures to protect Australia’s national security? Can the minister identify the exact security measures and programs that this unspent money was originally allocated to and explain why it has not been spent? Can the minister explain what action, if any, he has taken to ensure that these programs are now delivered in full?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Ludwig would know, and Senator Campbell might not because he was not at the committee hearing last night, evidence was given that $275 million projected for receivables represented a combination of accumulated operating surpluses, capital funding not yet expended and movements in creditors, lead provisions and the like. The AFP is in the process of giving Senator Ludwig a breakdown of that; it was taken on notice.

The surpluses which were mentioned as a result of the PNG deployment involved a substantial amount of expenditure which was not proceeded with—again, because we had to withdraw from Papua New Guinea.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition might have liked the AFP to stay in New Guinea and not enjoy the immunity that we would insist upon our people having when they are serving in dangerous situations. We had to withdraw as a result of the decision in PNG. We had allocated substantial funding and staffing for that task. Because of an unexpected court decision, we had to withdraw in the interests of our own personnel. We did it—and we did it very quickly—because of the issue of immunity.

That brings with it funding aspects and staffing targets, which I mentioned in my last answer. There had been funding allocated which had left funding in place for accommodation and the like in case we could return to Papua New Guinea in the near future. If we had withdrawn that, it could well have been more costly to return to PNG if we were able to renegotiate the Enhanced Cooperation Program. That one aspect provided for an area of unspent funding. There were other areas in relation to the surplus. Of course, one that was explained to the committee last night was in relation to operations by the International Deployment Group.

The opposition do not understanding this, of course, but with policing, when you have deployments of this nature and size and you get a change in strategy which is beyond your control, such as the PNG deployment—and in relation to other aspects where you have a very substantial amount of money, such as the aviation security initiative, which requires a whole-of-government approach; and I say ‘whole of government’ deliberately, because you need the state and territory governments on board—then you have a situation where you cannot just deploy federal agents overnight and have that money expended overnight. It takes time to implement those programs, especially when we have had the announcements of the nature that we have enunciated, such as the deployments overseas, aviation security and of course our IDG announcement of just under half a billion dollars. We have never said that would happen in two weeks. That would be totally unrealistic. It happens over a period of time. That is what we have done with our other initiatives.

The commissioner explained clearly last night how those receivables came about. They are giving a breakdown to Senator Ludwig. This is just a shameful beat-up by the opposition. In fact, as I understand it, the commissioner last night endorsed the comments I made in relation to AFP recruitment.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, when did you first become aware that the AFP was unable to spend the money it had been allocated and did you take any action to rectify the problem? What impact does this serious underspend have on the AFP’s capacity to protect Australia’s national security?

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That question shows a complete lack of understanding by the opposition. They equate ‘underspend’ with lack of performance in law enforcement. You only have to look at what the AFP has been doing in this country, with record drug busts, with the work on counterterrorism, with the work on child pornography, with the work overseas and with the work nationally with the Australian Crime Commission and the state and territory police forces. That is how you judge law enforcement—on what it does and not on the dollars that are spent. An underspend does not equate to lack of law enforcement, which is the premise of this question.

The Australian Federal Police has had record funding and it has programs which have gone over a period of time. The Papua New Guinea case is one which we have been aware of and, of course, the AFP has been returning those funds to the department of finance. It is not just a one-off, one-year expenditure; it is expenditure which goes over a period of time. The opposition is trying to equate underspend with lack of law enforcement. (Time expired)