Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the AusCheck Bill 2006 and the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Brisbane. In his second reading speech the Attorney pointed out the policy objective of this bill. He said:

... the government agreed to establish a centralised background checking service in the Attorney-General’s Department as part of a wider initiative to strengthen the ASIC and the MSIC systems.

ASIC relates to aviation security identification cards and MSIC relates to maritime security identification cards. The Attorney-General continued:

The new division has been established, now known as AusCheck, and it will help the aviation and maritime industries to identify high-risk individuals who should not be granted an ASIC or an MSIC.

…         …         …

The decision to establish AusCheck followed a recommendation of Sir John Wheeler’s Airport Security and Policing Review and is an important part of the government’s ongoing commitment to improve aviation and maritime security.

That recommendation was recommendation No. 19, which states:

A new national card-authorising body within the Attorney-General’s Department is required to bring together the national security and criminality streams and immigration checks on a timely ‘live’ basis and to apply judgements as to who is a fit and proper person for the purposes of access to sensitive airport areas and aircraft. Appeals against decisions of this body should be to a special section of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as is currently available with respect to ASIO decisions. Employers also have a responsibility to screen prospective staff carefully before seeking an ASIC and to monitor any relevant behaviour after issue. This improved aviation system has a clear analogue in the maritime sector.

So what the government is attempting to do with this legislation is laudable. I think it is something that deserves the support of all of us in parliament. I think there is a history where, at times, there has been a bit of slackness—which I do not necessarily need to go into. In the heightened security environment the public would expect that areas like this are streamlined, are more efficient and are seen to be more effective.

The problem we have, I suppose, as a federation, is that we have eight states and territories and a Commonwealth, and at times, quite frankly, things fall through the cracks because of jurisdictional borders. The same is true in relation to different agencies. Things can fall through the cracks from different agencies not talking to one another. So what we are seeing here is a capacity for different agencies to talk to one another and to be able to have this new national card-authorising body operating in a timely and efficient manner with a single database.

As the honourable member for Denison pointed out, there are some question marks over whether some aspects of this scheme should be in the legislation or should be in regulations. He pointed out two sections of the bill. Clause 5 is really the guts of the bill—‘Definition of background check’. It states:

A background check, in relation to an individual, is an assessment of information relating to one or more of the following:

(a)

the individual’s criminal history ...

No problems with that. Clause 5(b) states:

(b)

matters relevant to a security assessment of the individual ...

No problems with that. Clause 5(c) states:

(c)

the individual’s citizenship status, residency status or the individual’s entitlement to work in Australia, including but not limited to, whether the person is an Australian citizen, a permanent resident or an unlawful non-citizen ...

No problems with that. Clause 5(d) states:

(d)

such other matters as are prescribed by the regulations.

That is a very broad section of the act, and it is open to manipulation by governments and bureaucrats in relation to what those ‘other matters’ are that are going to be prescribed by the regulations. I can understand the need for regulations as against legislation in a number of instances—indeed, the benefit of a regulation is that it allows rapid action to be taken in times of emergency. But a disadvantage is that accountability and control are lost.

Another section that is a cause for concern is clause 8—‘Establishment of AusCheck scheme’. Clause 8(1) states:

The regulations may provide for the establishment of a background checking scheme (the AusCheck scheme) relating to the conduct and coordination of background checks of individuals:

(a)

for the purposes of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or regulations under that Act; and

(b)

for the purposes of the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 or regulations under that Act; and—

here is the problem subclause—

(c)

for such other purposes as are prescribed by the regulations.

What we would say—or what I certainly say on this side—is that that is a very broad subclause, together with clause 5(d), in terms of just saying ‘for such other purposes as are prescribed by the regulations’. That is a really wide power to be handing over to the minister without proper guidelines. Under clause 5, you can tell that we are worried about specific things: criminal history, ASIO checks and citizenship status. What can come under clause 5(d)? Someone’s political affiliations? Will the old Communist Party membership disqualify you?

See this speech in context