Senate debates

Tuesday, 20 June 2006

Budget

Consideration by Legislation Committees; Reports

6:21 pm

Photo of Alan EgglestonAlan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports from all the legislation committees on the 2006-07 budget estimates, together with the Hansard record of the committees’ proceedings and documents received by certain committees. I move:

That the reports be printed.

6:22 pm

Photo of John FaulknerJohn Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I want to touch on the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. It has just been handed to me but I can, in fact, say that I am aware of the contents of the report because I am a participating member in the F&PA Legislation Committee.

I particularly want to go to some issues in relation to administration of the parliament. You will note, Mr Acting Deputy President, in paragraphs 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of chapter 2 of the report, the sorts of issues that senators at estimates committee in the budget estimates round were canvassing with the President of the Senate and officials from the Department of Parliamentary Services. As a result of evidence adduced at estimates committees, we know that savings and efficiencies from parliamentary departments were extracted to fund $11.7 million worth of security works and security enhancements around Parliament House.

We also know—again, thanks to the estimates committee process—that included in that expenditure was expenditure of $2,248,606 on bollards.

Photo of Michael ForshawMichael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

On what?

Photo of John FaulknerJohn Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Bollards! And we also know—again, thanks to good work of Senate committees—that the Podger review, which the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives estimated would find $5 million of savings in the parliamentary departments, in fact found only $2 million of savings. Eventually, I think, the Department of Finance and Administration put the cue in the rack on that particular issue. I note that in paragraph 2.6—an important paragraph—the report says:

The departmental secretary, Ms Penfold, informed the Committee that savings from amalgamating the parliamentary service departments, as recommended by the Podger review, stood at just under $2 million. It was noted that this figure was well short of the savings estimated in the Podger review. DPS indicated it had made significant efforts to improve efficiency and reduce costs across the department independently of the review.

As I have said, we know that there have been very substantial works on security around the parliament. We now have 182 bollards—we know that, again, because of good work by the Senate estimates committee—around the perimeter of Parliament House. We also know—again, as a result of questioning at the estimates committee—that there are more than 7,000 photographic passes that allow those bollards to be retracted. I asked a question of Ms Penfold on Monday, 22 May at the budget estimates which I would care to quote. I said:

What was the cost of these bollards, again? So one of 7,000 passes goes astray and basically the whole security plan in relation to the bollards is out the window. 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 in response said:

That was the initial thought—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting

Photo of John FaulknerJohn Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I do not find that funny. Ms Penfold went on to say:

When the Protective Security Coordination Centre undertook its review of the arrangements, it was actually doing a risk assessment. It took account of the competing interests and priorities—

You would think safety was going to be the main one—

One was to secure the areas close to the building, and the other was to do it without making life completely impossible for the people who have to use the building. So there was a balance of convenience ...

Ms Penfold, after answering a number of other rather good, I thought, questions from me, went on to explain to the committee about the issue of the passes retracting the bollards and how the system was designed. She said:

It was designed on the basis of a report that was received in 2003, which referred to ‘authorised people’ being able to access the slip-roads. When we started working on how to implement that we pretty much met a black hole—

Not the ones that the bollards go into—

Frankly, I think that was an easy phrase that had been put in to move the thing along. So we had to start from scratch with the structure pretty much in place, and get a new set of advice. And the new set of advice was that on a risk management approach we could let pass holders access those slip-roads at certain times.

So, if the advice does not suit, you get a new set of advice and, eventually, you get advice that does suit. That appears to be what happened; that was the evidence, anyway, that was given at the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee. It was very interesting evidence that was received by the committee; what was unexpected was the information that more than 7,000 photographic passes are able to retract the bollards. That was never the intention at all in spending $11.7 million on enhancing the security of Parliament House. We should not underestimate the importance of the security of a building like this. We have responsibilities and obligations to make sure of that to those people who work in this building, not just members and senators.

Question agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.32 pm to 7.30 pm