Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I thank all members who have participated in this debate on the AusCheck Bill 2006, starting with the member for Brisbane, the member for Banks, the member for Batman, the member for Denison and, latterly, the member for Blaxland, whose contributions I always enjoy and find thoughtful. I might deal with the part of his contribution that I think was least relevant to this debate, and that is the question, the canard, as to whether or not we should have a department of homeland security.

I have not had an opportunity to talk about this recently, but I am interested that the idea is still being pushed. The assumption that we might not look at what happens abroad and see what could be learnt would be a flawed assumption. We always look at what is happening abroad. The question is whether it is appropriate for our jurisdiction. We came to the view that, essentially, having to revisit all of the administrative arrangements that need to be examined when you go through a major reorganisation of that type would effect a lessening of our efforts in relation to security while you had people focusing on looking at what their tasks might be and re-establishing appropriate linkages and relearning their relationships. You only have to look at what happened in the United States in the tragedy of Cyclone Katrina. It was quite clear that the Department of Homeland Security failed, and that had a great deal to do with the problems of linkages.

There was another argument that I noticed was advanced. It was that I do not have enough time to devote myself to the security tasks because I happen to also have some responsibilities as Attorney-General. I thought that was a particularly interesting argument that I had to grapple with: that I have to handle a number of my colleagues on the other side of the chamber—the member for Brisbane, our colleague from Melbourne and, I suppose, if I am dealing with native title issues, probably somebody else—and I do not have enough time to give myself full focus. I thought this was an argument that the member for Brisbane would have been convinced of.

Then I looked at the new responsibilities that were given to the members opposite. I asked for a copy of the shadow ministry list, and I note that the member for Brisbane is now the shadow minister for homeland security and territories. I do not know what linkage there is between national security and territories, but what I do notice is that his single focus on national security is no more; he has these responsibilities for territories in addition. But excuse my making a little fun of what has happened. I would like to deal with the substance of the AusCheck Bill, and I am glad you did not bring me into order, Mr Deputy Speaker, for speaking beyond the bill.

I welcome the supporting principle for the measure, because the bill is necessary to provide legislative authority to enable a new organisation, AusCheck, to provide a centralised background-checking and coordination service for the Commonwealth. It does not set up any new background-checking regimes, but it provides a framework that will be conducted by AusCheck. The detail of what may or may not be required to meet the requirements of existing or new background-checking schemes is set out in the current legislation or will be provided under the new legislation and supported by regulations made under the act.

AusCheck has the potential to deliver significant efficiencies to avoid delays and duplication for both business and individuals in sensitive sectors where community expectations require screening of employees. The commencement of AusCheck is expected to significantly reduce processing time and prevent the card-issuing delays that have been experienced in the past. In the case of the aviation security identification card and the maritime security identification card programs, the detail of background-checking elements is already in place and provided for in the relevant legislation.

I note that the member for Brisbane and the member for Denison raised concerns that regulations may be made under this bill. The substance of any additional background-checking schemes that AusCheck coordinates will be set out in an act or regulation that deals with the relevant policy issues. For example, the aviation and maritime security background-checking requirements are contained in legislation administered within the transport portfolio. Another example is the new screening requirements for people employed in aged-care facilities, which are contained in legislation administered within the portfolio of the Minister for Ageing.

AusCheck is not presently involved in coordination of those new checks but may in future offer attractive efficiencies to the administering department through the use of automated systems and special expertise. Whenever AusCheck provides checking or coordination services, its activities will need to be supported by regulations made under this bill. It is only through the regulation-making power that AusCheck will be able to take new checking coordination roles and, through this, enhance Australia’s security.

This bill is designed to provide a flexible framework for a government agency to develop expertise in automated background checking against criteria set out in diverse pieces of legislation in response to a variety of concerns. It will permit AusCheck to offer its services to a wide range of government departments charged with the responsibility of responding to those concerns. With its automated system and focus on privacy protection, it will be a fast, fair and efficient way for individuals to have assessments relevant to their employment made. As a result, when background checks are made necessary by law, individuals and industry can be assured of a speedy and consistent outcome.

AusCheck will not be responsible for issuing any cards. It will provide advice about whether a background check on a person indicates that they have met the specified requirements. Of course, these requirements are set out in the relevant scheme, not in the AusCheck Bill. Once operational, AusCheck will be able to manage background checking in other schemes and minimise duplication of effort. It will maintain a database of all aviation and maritime security identification card applicants and cardholders, and the bill provides that the database can only be used for a limited purpose. Its purpose will be responding to a national security incident. I note that the member for Newcastle placed emphasis on privacy, and I observe that the protection of privacy is a vital aspect of the process. AusCheck will operate in accordance with the provisions of the Privacy Act and ensure that information on its database is properly protected.

Since the tragic events of September 11, there has been heightened awareness of the potential threat to public safety in the aviation sector, and the government has already adopted substantial measures to strengthen aviation security, including hardening cockpit doors, requiring passenger screening through all regular passenger jets, upgraded closed circuit television and monitoring capability, and enhanced cargo security clearances and checked-baggage screening. The creation of AusCheck as a centralised background-checking service for the Commonwealth will help the aviation and maritime industries to identify high-risk individuals. This bill is obviously an important step forward in the government’s commitment to improving both aviation and maritime security.

There were some further issues raised. The member for Brisbane drew upon instances of lost ASICs in his comments on the AusCheck Bill. In fact, the commencement of AusCheck and its centralisation of background checking should improve the ability to monitor cards. I make this observation: it is of concern when cards are unaccounted for, but the number of non-returned cards compares favourably with the non-return rate for other identity documents, such as drivers licences and Australian passports. For example, of the 1.2 million Australian passports issued each year, some 25,000 are reported lost or stolen, representing 2.1 per cent of all Australian passports issued each year. That compares with 1.5 per cent of ASICs that are reported lost or stolen.

We are working with industry to implement best practice measures to manage issues relating to lost, stolen or expired cards, and industry members have advised the government that they have established practices to do so. They include confirming the identity of the holder with the photograph at manned access points, disabling any electronic access rights that may have been included on an ASIC as soon as it has been reported lost or stolen, reporting the loss of a card to police, routinely auditing irregular card use at points not authorised for the holder and routinely reviewing ASICs with unusual characteristics, such as those that have not been used for some time or those with an unusual expiry date.

The member for Brisbane and the member for Denison expressed concern about the range of purposes for which background checking may be prescribed. Let me make it clear that AusCheck could be limited to national security matters, as initially it will coordinate background checks for the aviation and maritime industries. But the authority for AusCheck to maintain a database is restricted to keep it for limited purposes that have a national security focus. However, the creation of AusCheck to coordinate background checking does allow the government to build expertise in background checking for other systems and processes. That expertise has the potential to be applied in other sectors where there is a strong community interest in such checking. Examples are matters involving children and the elderly, where the subject matters are unrelated to national security but it is important that they are dealt with adequately. There is no current consideration of AusCheck being involved in either of these examples, but there is no reason that the expertise should be limited solely to background checking schemes that are related to national security. To cater for the range of possibilities, the scope and purpose for which the AusCheck background checking scheme may be established has been described by reference to Commonwealth fields of operation set out in the Constitution.

I mention those matters in particular, and I note that the matter has now been referred for further examination. Obviously, if issues arise in relation to the legislation through that examination, we would be more than happy to deal with them. I note that there are matters that are going to be considered in detail here, but I might observe that we did offer the opposition the opportunity to be fully briefed on these matters before this debate commenced, particularly given that there was no indication that the proposed bill would be opposed in principle.

I note that there is a second reading amendment, and I will deal with that briefly. In relation to aviation, the government is making significant progress in improving aviation security. The ASIC background checking criteria have been strengthened in three ways: first, by removing the grandfathering provisions that allowed certain criminal offences not to be taken into account in the assessment of ASIC applications; second, by adding a pattern of criminality test for ASIC applicants; and, third, by providing more frequent background checking if an ASIC applicant has a history of lower level criminal activities. ASIC holders who have failed new adverse criminal record criteria have had their cards cancelled. The government has enjoyed tremendous cooperation and assistance from the industry in this review. The advice from industry members is that background checking processes have been significantly improved.

In relation to maritime security identification cards, the rollout of that scheme began on 1 January 2007 and commenced smoothly. From the end of December 2006, the first round of temporary cards were issued to those people who applied for them before 27 October 2006. These temporary cards expired on 31 January 2007. The government has been actively working with industry to urge those who had not applied to take action and do so at their earliest convenience. The government and the issuing bodies are continuing to process applications as promptly as possible; however, some delays may occur depending upon individual circumstances—particularly, for instance, if an applicant has a criminal history. Obviously, processing can take longer in those circumstances.

In relation to foreign ship security, pre-entry reporting every ship seeking entry to Australia is subject to a comprehensive security assessment regardless of the flag it flies. This includes every ship carrying ammonium nitrate to an Australian port. The security risk assessment takes into account all relevant information about the ship, including the nature of the ship’s cargo and operations. This information is collected from mandatory ship and crew reports, which are required within certain time frames, depending upon the length of the voyage. Any ship failing to comply with pre-entry reporting requirements or identified as posing an unacceptable risk can be refused entry to Australia. Any ship so identified as posing a security risk, whether because of crew, cargo or other factors, would not be allowed entry.

I make those points in relation to the second reading amendment. I commend the bill to the chamber, and I hope that the Senate examination will not unduly delay the passage of this bill through all stages in both houses.

See this speech in context