Transcript
4 May 2008
Station: SKY News Australia
Program: Sunday Agenda
Time: 09:01 AM
Compere: David Speers
Item: Interview with Bob Debus about airport security, policing and the republic.
Interviewee: Bob Debus, Federal Minister for Home Affairs
DAVID SPEERS: Minister, thanks for joining us. Can I start with the scare at Perth Airport overnight? It has re-opened after a shut down of more than 12 hours. The police have checked these suspicious packages and say no further investigation is required. Was this the appropriate response, shutting down the airport, given all the chaos that it's caused for travellers?
BOB DEBUS: Well, I have to presume that is was, David. We have, of course, police and customs and other agencies are now working together at our international airports precisely to intercept dangerous goods and contraband, and to look out for terrorism and other acts that may threaten our security.
This is the world we live in, and I can only assume that they were doing their job properly as they normally do.
DAVID SPEERS: So this operation, did it also involve federal authorities?
BOB DEBUS: As I understand it there were federal police involved, and that would be normal. The Federal Police often take an important coordinating role in a matter like this.
DAVID SPEERS: Well, can I ask you about Perth airport, and indeed some of the other capital city airports. It's three years since the British aviation expert, Sir John Wheeler, called for extra police and extra security measures at Australia's airports. It was a landmark review.
Three years on those extra police apparently still have not been put in place at Perth Airport and Brisbane Airport. Why not?
BOB DEBUS: Well, there are extra police at all of our airports. There are more to come, and the Government, the new Government, has undertaken to increase the numbers of federal police by up to 500 over the coming years.
DAVID SPEERS: But this number that Sir John Wheeler recommended, has it been reached yet for these capital city airports?
BOB DEBUS: In most cases it has, but obviously we are still, as I say, recruiting people, and it is an undertaking of the new Government that we should do that.
DAVID SPEERS: But Labor complained very loudly and very often after this Wheeler report came out three years ago about the Howard Government's lack of attention to airport security. You've now been in office six months. Why is it taking so long?
BOB DEBUS: As I say, the new Government has undertaken to increase the number of police that are recruited, and that is what will occur, including in the coming budget.
DAVID SPEERS: And what about some of the other security measures he recommended. The closed circuit TV systems, the other X-ray systems. Have they all been implemented as recommended by Sir John Wheeler?
BOB DEBUS: Well, the implementation is well underway as I understand it, David, yes.
DAVID SPEERS: All right. Well, he also has called for a fresh review of airport security three years on. Do you think that's a good idea?
BOB DEBUS: I think that we should keep airport security, along with all other aspects of national security, under permanent review.
DAVID SPEERS: But does that mean a fresh review, or just ongoing monitoring by the Federal Government?
BOB DEBUS: Ongoing monitoring is the present approach that the Government is taking. I do believe that to be appropriate.
DAVID SPEERS: You don't think there's a need for a fresh review?
BOB DEBUS: I believe that active, ongoing monitoring is entirely the appropriate approach to be taking.
DAVID SPEERS: Now, you've confirmed, Bob Debus, the Federal Police will have its funding cut by two per cent in this budget. That would be about $24 million. How will that affect Federal Police operations?
BOB DEBUS: Well, actually I haven't confirmed that. It's possible. I believe the decision is not finally made. But if it were to be made, it would be the same kind of budget requirement that is applied to most Government departments, and the way Government departments deal with that kind of so-called efficiency dividend is to find ways to save on overtime or various aspects of the way the organisation is run in order to meet the new budget.
DAVID SPEERS: But would it have an impact, cutting this much money from the federal police budget? Would it have an impact on frontline services?
BOB DEBUS: No, it wouldn't. As in the case of any other Government department this kind of saving can be achieved through cutting services that don't affect the front line. That's the very point of them.
DAVID SPEERS: Can I turn to questions of corruption in our security forces. You apparently received a report about a month ago from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, the watchdog in this area. It detailed, quote, 'plausible and serious' corruption cases within an unnamed agency.
Can you tell us which agency this is, and how serious the suggestion of corruption is?
BOB DEBUS: Well, actually, David, that report actually specifically recommended that I do not reveal the details of the matter that had been raised and specifically indicated that the matter was old, and, indeed, that the accusations were not all that plausible.
DAVID SPEERS: But the Labor Government again promised a much more open and accountable Government to voters. Why is this sort of finding, it was a year long investigation, and as I say, has found a plausible and serious corruption case. Why is that being kept secret?
BOB DEBUS: Well, David, the advice to me is precisely the opposite. The advice to me in that particular matter is that the accusations should not, indeed, be revived, that they were investigated appropriately at the time, and I was specifically advised not to talk about them by the body responsible for integrity within our police services.
DAVID SPEERS: But can you tell us why not? Is it simply to save face?
BOB DEBUS: No, of course not. I mean we are talking here about an integrity commissioner who is giving that advice. If I can't accept the advice of the integrity commissioner in a matter like this, what's the point of having such a person?
DAVID SPEERS: Well, before we go, Bob Debus, I have to ask you, of course, about the New South Wales party conference over the weekend. As a former New South Wales - senior New South Wales Government Minister, what do you think Morris Iemma should do now that the party organisation at the conference yesterday overwhelmingly voted against privatisation of the New South Wales power industry, giving him a humiliating defeat on the conference floor. What should the Premier now do?
BOB DEBUS: Well, I think there's no choice but for all the parties to this dispute to keep on negotiating. You know, the New South Wales Labor Party has been one of the most powerful forces, if not the most powerful force in Australian politics for the last 50 years. It's resolved a lot of very serious disputes by sometimes long negotiation, and it's got to do it again. There's really no choice.
DAVID SPEERS: But if he was to press ahead with power privatisation now, would that send a message to the party rank and file that there's really not much point to being a member of the Labor Party?
BOB DEBUS: Well, let's see how the negotiations go. It's a very difficult problem. It's difficult in policy terms, it's difficult in political terms, but it's got to be resolved. And that's why the conference yesterday actually passed motions allowing for the continuing of negotiation. That's what's got to happen.
DAVID SPEERS: Well, you were there when Bob Carr tried and failed to privatise the power industry. What is your position on the policy itself? Is it a good idea?
BOB DEBUS: Well, look, I'm not directly responsible for the deliberations of the New South Wales Government in this matter. I think we need to find some path up the middle, and it's got to be negotiated.
DAVID SPEERS: All right. Now, I've also got to ask you about the republic at the 2020 Summit a couple of weekends ago. You called for a republic by 2010. It received very popular support. What particular type of republic are you in favour of? Would it be a directly elected president, or one appointed by Parliament?
DAVID SPEERS: I make that call at the summit, and it was partly indeed to get debate going, and I was successful in that respect.
The Summit actually recommended in the end that there should be a two stage process. A referendum about whether the Australian people wanted a republic, and then a further referendum about the exact nature of the republic that we would have, that to take place some years later.
Now, that is a very sober and careful approach to an issue that obviously does cause a lot of concern to many citizens of this country, and I think it is actually an appropriate way to proceed. We must await the Government's overall decision about how we should approach the republic. I think it is inevitable that the Government will do that, but I think it's appropriate, indeed, that we do it in a way that ensures that the whole community can be brought along with us.
DAVID SPEERS: And by 2010, that's a fairly quick time frame. It's not what Kevin Rudd is suggesting. Do you think it realistically can be done in that short time?
BOB DEBUS: No, I don't. As I said I made an intervention at the summit to precipitate debate, and I did do that, but I accept that the actual recommendations of the summit that I've just described were very sensible.
DAVID SPEERS: All right. Bob Debus, we're out of time. Thank you very much for joining us today.
BOB DEBUS: Thanks, David.
End