Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014 amends section 65A of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to provide that the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, or a deputy commissioner or a senior executive AFP employee who is nominated by the Presiding Officers, may be a member of the Security Management Board. It also expands the existing function of the board to include the operation of security measures.

Currently, the legislated membership of the Security Management Board, section 65A(2), is the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services or a senior executive service employee of that department nominated by the Presiding Officers in writing, an SES employee of the Department of the Senate nominated by the President of the Senate in writing, and an SES employee of the Department of the House of Representatives nominated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in writing.

Currently, the legislated function of the security management board in section 65A(5) is to provide advice as required to the Presiding Officers on security policy and the management of security measures for Parliament House. The bill passed the House of Representatives on 26 November 2014 and was referred to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for additional scrutiny to ensure that everything was all right with the provisions of this bill. The committee reported on 2 March 2015, recommending that the bill be passed without amendment.

I particularly note the advice from the Clerk of the House of Representatives that:

… it seems entirely appropriate for a senior representative of the AFP to be included as a fourth member of the SMB.

Also, the clerks of the House of Representatives and the Senate both agree that amending the function of the security management board to include the operation of security measures was right. The Clerk of the House of Representatives said it was 'sensible' and the Clerk of the Senate said that it would:

… would put beyond doubt that the Board can and should examine matters related to the operation of Parliament House Security.

Following the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill, Labor sought greater assurance that the role of the security management board would not be elevated as a result of these changes and that it would retain its advisory function rather than take on a decision making role. I emphasise that under the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, both as it currently stands and under the proposed amendments, it is the Presiding Officers—that is, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives—who act on the advice of the security management board.

In order to protect its prerogative, the Senate had to manage its own security and also protect the rights of senators to be consulted on changes to security arrangements. Labor developed a proposal that has strengthened the role of the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing in the oversight of security matters. under Senate standing order 19(3), the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing:

… shall consider the administration and funding of security measures affecting the Senate and advise the President and the Senate as appropriate.

Labor sought a referral to the Procedure Committee proposing changes to the standing orders to change the name of the committee to appropriations, staffing and security and to increase its responsibilities to include the operation of security measures affecting the Senate. The Deputy President of the Senate will be included in the membership of the committee, joining the President, four senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, four senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition and other non-government senators. I also note that any senator is able to attend these meetings.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate wrote to the President of the Senate requesting that he use his authority to refer the proposed changes to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure for inquiry and report, which is the usual practice. The Procedure Committee reported to the Senate on this matter earlier this week. Labor view the Senate's role in the oversight of security matters concerning the Senate and Parliament House very seriously. I am pleased that earlier today the Senate agreed to a reference initiated by Labor to Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee concerning proposed Parliament House security upgrade works. Changes to the Senate's internal governance of security matters allow Labor to support the bill in the Senate without amendment.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand to speak about the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014 and in particular schedule 1, about which the Australian Greens have some concerns. That is because it is the view of the Greens that this schedule both create an unnecessary position on the security management board and formalises operational measures as part of the boards remit, both of which the Australian Greens believe are regrettable.

Schedule 1 of the bill seeks to formalise an Australian Federal Police position on the security management board. Whether it is the commissioner or another representative as listed, the Greens believe that this is unnecessary. That is because section 65A of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 already permits the board to invite the heads of other organisations to attend or to be represented at its meetings. The Australian Greens believe that this discretionary power is sufficient and it is not necessary to formalise that particular position.

In addition, the expansion of the board's remit to include the operation of security is also of concern, particularly in light of recent developments, such as recent ill-thought through decisions—that was subsequently reversed—about face coverings in parliament and also recent steps that have been taken with respect to the introduction of firearms within the chambers of parliament. The Australian Greens are gravely concerned that these developments have seen a move towards what really can be characterised as the militarisation of public space in Australia. It is our view that these changes in the bill will further this trend.

The Australian Greens do not support firearms being carried inside the parliament. We believe that this is a clear divergence from the long-standing practice and convention in the Westminster system, which is that no arms are carried in houses of parliament. We are concerned that this particular change seeks to embody rhetoric of fear in practice by integrating it into our discussions about our parliament and our security. We have to ask just what kind of message are we sending to the greater Australian public if we say that parliamentarians cannot go about their business without being surrounded by armed security. The use of arms in parliament is a breach of a Westminster convention that dates back to the time of King Charles I and the English Civil War. Since the 1640s, weapons have been banned from parliamentary precincts.

The fact is that the Australian Greens believe firmly that more guns do not make people safer. We do not want militarisation of our public spaces and we believe that Australians do not want that either. That particularly includes parliament. We do not want to go the way of America, where it is claimed that only a good guy with a gun can stop the bad guys. That is not the experience in Australia. It has never been the case in Australia and it should not start now.

In particular, the Australian Greens are very concerned about the political context for the changes that are proposed in this bill. We are living in a time when we have seen, regrettably, a ratcheting up of rhetoric around national security, particularly by the government. Yes, there are serious national security concerns to be had. There is a willingness on the part of the Australian public to engage in thoughtful discussion about how that has to be managed, but there is also a strong view among many that the rhetoric has been employed by the government for its own political ends. We have seen comments and speeches by ministers and especially the Prime Minister which have actually served to heighten fear and division in the Australian community.

Ironically, and unfortunately and destructively for the fabric of Australian society, this rhetoric actually risks making our security worse, not better, particularly for individual Australians, some of whom have become the focus of fear, hatred and increased ugly prejudice from other Australians. We have seen increases in attacks and bullying through some kind of xenophobia or misunderstanding against Muslim women and other women and men who happen to wear headgear, not just Muslims but Sikhs and people from other religious and ethnic backgrounds. That is not a good thing for Australia; it is a destructive thing for Australia. I have heard anecdotes from parents even about children being bullied, and about increased bullying, in schools because of their religious or ethnic background.

The Australian Greens believe that true security in Australia relies on cohesion and unity brought on by policies, rhetoric and leadership that actually bring out the best in us as a people, by the sort of leadership that actually plays to the strengths that we all know we have in multiculturalism, by the sort of leadership, speeches and values enunciated by our leaders that highlight and reinforce the decency and common values that we share, such as the idea that people in Australia should have a fair go. That is what has attracted so many people to come from other places to make a home here and is what has made such loyal citizens of people who have come and become Australian citizens. It is those values and that leadership which will enable Australians ultimately to stand together to refute the horror and cruelty that is so un-Australian and that is personified by organisations like ISIS.

Coming back to the bill under discussion, the Greens do not support moves towards the militarisation of our public spaces, including the parliament. We are concerned that this bill is a step towards that outcome. The Australian Greens believe that this bill can be seen as representing another attempt to scare people into believing that we are unsafe and divided. The Greens will continue to rebut what we see as the unnecessary, sometimes fear-driven, self-serving, and ultimately destructive and counterproductive rhetoric of the government when it comes to national security.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In closing the debate on the bill I thank senators for their contributions. I particularly note Senator Cameron's comments in relation to the Presiding Officers still retaining the authority and there being no erosion in the ability of the parliament to make decisions vested through the President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I note also the comments made by Senator Wright in relation to the militarisation of parliament and stress that this bill in no way moves in that direction. This bill simply provides a permanent voice from the Australian Federal Police to provide advice with the other board members to the Presiding Officers. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.