This speech was delivered on 10/09/2013 in the NSW Upper House. You can read the full debate online here.
SECURITY INDUSTRY AMENDMENT (LICENCES) BILL 2013
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.50 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I speak in debate on the Security Industry Amendment (Licences) Bill 2013. The object of the bill is to amend the Security Industry Act 1997 to resolve an inconsistency between the principal Act and Australia’s international trade commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS] by allowing persons who hold certain visas to work in the security industry and hold a licence under the Security Industry Act 1997. The bill also makes a number of minor and consequential amendments to the principal Act and the Firearms Act 1996. The principle task of this legislation is to expand the number of people who can effectively be locksmiths in New South Wales and have access to some of the most important security devices, master keys and the like, for important facilities throughout New South Wales.
The bill has come about only because it has been forced on the New South Wales Government due to commitments made by Australia under the World Trade Organisation free trade agreement on services or the GATS process. The bill will make it possible for people who are not Australian residents and who do not have citizenship or residency rights here to be granted security licences under the Security Industry Act. This includes locksmiths who have access to high-security master keys. Those keys potentially could give locksmiths with a nefarious purpose access to highly sensitive facilities. Schedule 1 item [1] amends the current section 14 (2) to specify that application forms must be supported by relevant information, rather than having it included in applications. Schedule 1 item [2] removes the current restriction that only Australian citizens or permanent residents can be granted a security licence.
Effectively, it expands the group of people entitled to work in the security industry and become locksmiths in Australia, although I note that it is not expanded to include students or those on working holiday visas. I am concerned about the circumstances which have brought the bill about. It has not been brought about because it is considered to be in the best interests of security in New South Wales or because it is considered to be a sensible rationalisation of the security industry. It has been foisted upon New South Wales because of the mantra of free trade, which effectively limits the ability of this Parliament to legislate in the best interests of New South Wales. There is concern about whether appropriate background checks of a person’s security and criminal history will be done when such a person has not had his or her background checked to get residency or citizenship in New South Wales.
Someone may have been on our shores for only a short time, has not gone through the checks and balances that are done of his or her security when he or she becomes a citizen and that person relies upon a security clearance that has been granted by another country. Many jurisdictions would be fine. If we were getting a security clearance from New Zealand, Brazil or the United States of America, we would be perfectly comfortable with accepting police security checks from those countries. However, we would be less than comfortable simply signing off on security checks from other jurisdictions around the world.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Name them.
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: In response to the Hon. Amanda Fazio’s interjection, war-torn countries in sub-Saharan Africa would be one example where we would have concern about security checks that have been done. Our concern is that this legislation is being driven by that free trade agenda, and it is yet another example where the Parliament’s ability to legislate in the best interests of our citizens is playing second fiddle to an absolute commitment to a free trade agenda, regardless of the impact. It may well be that there is a general discretion in the granting of licences. That means that if the commissioner or other person reviewing the licence has concerns about the validity of the security checks he or she has a general discretion to refuse a licence. Of course, such a refusal would be subject to review; and one would think that it would be difficult for the Government to defend that decision in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal if a licence was refused simply on the basis that it was uncertain about the quality of the security checks done in a foreign country.
I have not yet heard an explanation from the Minister about the consultation that he and his department have had with the police. I have not heard any security basis upon which the Government is supporting this legislation. When we are talking about the security of locksmiths and master keys and the important role they play in security apparatus in New South Wales it is surprising to find that the only defence for this bill is that free trade mantra. There is no evidence that the Government has sought to properly consult with the police to address those security concerns. While The Greens have those significant concerns about the genesis of the bill, we want to hear the Government respond on the record and assure the New South Wales community that there will be sufficient checks and balances to ensure that locksmiths and the master keys to which they have access will be properly protected with this free trade agenda going through this Parliament.
