HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TERRORISM (SURFACE TRANSPORT SECURITY) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 February 2011.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:03): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much background noise.

Mr GRIFFITHS: There is no intention to move amendments. We will be seeking some explanation during the committee stage on some of the clauses, and I am sure the minister will be able to provide the house and the people of South Australia with some in-depth answers on the Terrorism (Surface Transport Security) Bill of 2011.

There is no doubt that the world is a different place to what it was when we grew up. The terrible things that are occurring around the world are requiring governments to ensure that they provide opportunities for the people who live in and visit those countries to be safe and secure in the knowledge that when they travel—when they fly or go by train—and when they are in large buildings or large events, the risk of any form of terrorism has reduced as much as possible.

Governments around the world have invested significant dollars in ensuring that the safety measures are in place. For those who do travel around, there are so many more people who act in an enforcement mode to ensure that the security and safety of people is maintained, who we do not actually see as they operate in the background. It really does enforce the fact that governments of all persuasions are making every attempt to ensure that their communities are as safe as possible.

I put on record from the start that this bill was introduced four weeks ago by the minister. I am very grateful for the fact that the minister's staff were able to arrange a briefing for me the following week which allowed me the opportunity to review the bill and put a position paper to the opposition. After considering the issues involved and making an attempt to consult with the organisations that the minister's staff indicated were also involved in the consultation, we formed the opinion that it appears as though there are no concerns. However, there will be some areas that we will seek to ask some questions on.

As I understand it, though, the intention of the bill is to apply an act to require certain surface transport operators to implement counterterrorism plans, and that these plans will promote the development of high-security opportunities across South Australia and assist in raising security awareness. Again, that is a need that has to be out there. We had the terrible events of 11 September 2001. Certainly, there has been a direct impact upon Australia with the Bali bombings, where some 88 Australians passed away among over 200 people who were killed in that event. However, we do live in a very safe nation because our government has recognised the challenges and it is determined to use every opportunity.

As I understand it, the Council of Australian Governments has endorsed an intergovernmental agreement on service transport security, which requires all states and territories to implement this legislation. Queensland and Victoria have enacted the legislation already and South Australia's legislation is based upon the Victorian example. Indeed, Western Australia, as I am advised, is considering the South Australian legislation before it introduces its own. This shows that a level of cooperation exists between all the states to ensure that there is some commonality in how this issue is dealt with. One of the reasons for each state having its own legislation is to ensure that there can be no perception that any state is seen as an easier target for any level of terrorism activity.

I do pose some questions, though, if the minister can provide an outline. Some information was provided to me in the briefing, but I would certainly appreciate if the minister could put on the public record the types of organisations (some of their names and the functions that they perform) that he believes he will declare a security identified surface transport operation—I think the term is SISTO—because not all of them are actually transport operators; some of them are events that bring a large number of people together within a defined time period and therefore provide somewhat of a target, potentially.

At the briefing we were told that it would be organisations such as Great Southern Rail, SeaLink, AAMI Stadium (for large events and football being played there), Westfield shopping centres, Adelaide City Council—I would be interested to hear the impact that Adelaide City Council will have on this—and TransAdelaide. Under the bill, these identified operators are required to produce a security plan. In the briefing, I automatically asked, 'On the basis that they do prepare the plan, who then is responsible for ensuring its suitability?' I was told that there is not necessarily an automatic responsibility to provide the plan to the Minister for Transport, or his nominee, for review.

Then I posed the question, 'Therefore, what happens with the plan if it is not checked by another authority to determine its suitability?' A rather surprising comment was made to me, which I am sure the minister will correct when he puts his comments before the house, that the potential did exist, therefore, for the plan to sit in the bottom drawer of someone who is responsible for the business operation. Now, the minister shakes his head, as I did at the time also, minister, so I am sure that you will correct this. It might have been a rather flippant remark and I am sure that will not be the intent of what is created here.

The reason I posed the question is that documents such as that concern me immensely. For this process to work correctly, we have to ensure that it becomes part of the culture of the organisation and that there is a focus from senior management, through the lines of management that exist within the business, to ensure that the impacts are identified and the opportunities to reduce, as much as humanly possible, any possibility of a terrorism event occurring are identified and acted upon. It should become part of the culture of that organisation, as occurs with workers' compensation to ensure the safety of workers within an organisation. It may have been a flippant comment made to me at the briefing, but I would like the minister to provide a bit of an outline about that.

As part of the briefing we were also told that in many cases—because I had posed the question as to what the cost of this would be—these larger organisations have identified that some potential does already exist, and that as part of some contractual agreement that they may have with the governments (federal and state) there is a need to identify anti-terrorism risks and threats within their own management plans and the contractual agreements that they have with those governments. That is why, in many cases, the impost would be on the lower scale, and that is why the preparation of the plan would not come at a significant cost for the business, but I would be interested if the minister could outline some thoughts on that.

I do recognise that major metropolitan public transport providers, who are private operators, have contracts with the government already, and they would have to ensure that these plans are there and are maintained to match the requirements of this legislation. There may be some modification required for those contracts, which are about to be renewed, I think, in the next few months. I am also advised of the safety regulation division within the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure is responsible for ensuring that transport operations are meeting those contractual requirements.

It was rather interesting that in one of the clauses there is an exemption from Freedom of Information Act requests. That did raise some questions within the opposition party room, but it does seem to me that it is appropriate that this be in place. It is important that these plans, once prepared, authorised and then acted upon within organisations, are secure.

Again I pose the question: how do we ensure that that is in place? Certainly, on the basis that they go to the minister's office for review, whoever within DTEI or the minister's office reviews that, there needs to be a security system in place to ensure that there can be no access via any outside source to that information, because security plans are useless if they are freely available. That is why the freedom of information exemption is certainly supported.

There were some questions raised as to how we can try to make this better. I do believe that, given this has occurred around each of the states and territories within Australia and based on the COAG agreement, as well as using some examples of what is occurring overseas, it has been refined into a process that gives a greater level of security to all involved to believe that, yes, it will work appropriately; yes, the cost impost will be kept to a minimum; and, importantly, that all Australians and visitors to our nation will have confidence in the fact that, when they are involved in these mass transport operations or using a facility that brings a lot of people together, the organisations and the governments providing the services are focused on trying to make sure that they are as safe as possible.

I do not wish to hold up the house for very long with my contribution. I will have questions that I will pose at the committee stage; but I do confirm that the opposition supports the intention of the bill. We do look forward to the passage of this bill and to ensuring that it is enacted as quickly as possible for the safety of all South Australians.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:13): I too rise to speak to the Terrorism (Surface Transport Security) Bill 2011, which was introduced to this house by the Minister for Transport on 9 February this year. The intention of the bill is to require certain surface transport operators to implement counterterrorism plans and assist in raising security awareness in South Australia.

As we all know, with ongoing conflicts overseas for quite a few years now, especially in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the threat of terrorism is always there. I salute our armed forces who are serving both here and overseas. Many of them do many rotations in war zones, and I salute them all. My brother, as I have mentioned in this place before, served in Iraq from September 2005 to March 2006. I certainly salute all the soldiers who have lost their lives in the war against terror and note the sad passing of Sapper Jamie Larcombe in the last few weeks.

As I said, terrorism is something we need to be extremely aware of in Australia. It is good that there are provisions being put in place so that the population can take some responsibility for their activities. Here today we are talking about people involved in transport industries across Australia in that vein.

Targets of terrorism could include mass passenger transport systems because of the potential for a significant level of harm, which could include a large number of casualties, injuries and large economic and social impacts. COAG endorsed an intergovernmental agreement on surface transport security with the primary aim being to implement nationally consistent arrangements to protect the community through strengthening security measures on surface transport systems. Victoria and Queensland have already enacted similar legislation, and South Australia's legislation has been drafted based on the Victorian model. Western Australia is looking to draft legislation based on what comes out of this parliament.

The bill provides the minister with the power to identify operators at risk of a terrorist attack, for example, due to their size, location, iconic status and the number of passengers using the operation. Examples in this state include operations such as Great Southern Rail, SeaLink, AAMI Stadium (Football Park), Westfield, Adelaide City Council and TransAdelaide. All identified operators will have a responsibility under the act to prepare a security plan. The plan does not have to be provided to the minister for analysis and approval. However, there will be provision in the act for the minister to acquire the plan if required.

Many companies already have the requirement to provide a security plan as part of existing contractual agreements with the state government. For example, major metropolitan public transport providers are already required under their contracts with the state government to introduce and maintain counterterrorism measures that match the requirements of this legislation. The safety and regulation division within DTEI is responsible for ensuring transport operators are meeting their contractual obligations.

It is good to see that support in developing effective security plans will be available through the department. This is particularly important to help smaller operators who may not have the staffing levels to cope with the extra compliance required under this legislation; however, it is probably doubtful that operators of that size will be targeted.

Measures are also in place to keep security plans confidential. They will be kept as classified documents and have exemption from freedom of information requests. I believe there has been large consultation with key transport industry players, including operators at risk—as I mentioned previously, operators such as Great Southern Rail, SeaLink, AAMI Stadium, Westfield, Adelaide City Council and TransAdelaide—and there is general support for the bill.

I note that some of the penalty provisions in the bill are significant, that is, up to $50,000 for some breaches if this act is passed, and that will help ensure that people comply. It is also interesting to note that this is not just about deterring terrorism, but companies need to have a plan in place if an attack occurs so they can recover vehicles and equipment and assist people and passengers, for example, in a passenger rail situation in the event of an attack.

Some people may think terrorism is a long way away, but the world is a very small place. We have seen incidents recently in Asia and bombings in London and other places such as New York. So it can happen anywhere, and we are probably very fortunate in that we live on a very large island, but that does not deter terrorism, so we must be ever vigilant. With those few words, I indicate support for the bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:19): I will make a brief contribution. It is not the appropriate time to talk about the bigger issue of terrorism per se, but I think it is fair to say that some of the Western nations, in particular the United States, have created their own terrorism problem with their approach, particularly in areas such as the Middle East where they have not been even-handed and where they are perceived as anti-Islam. I think we need to address that particular strategy. We cannot do it for the United States, but we should be seen as being even-handed in our approach to affairs in the Middle East and in the way that we treat and respect people who follow Islam.

As members may know, I am a great train user. I have travelled many times on the interstate trains, and I have always been puzzled as to why security is so open-ended when you travel by train. Once, when I was on the Overland, there were gangsters on board—and that is not including myself!—going to a funeral in Melbourne. The reason they travelled on the train was so that they could take their firearms with them, which is very difficult if you fly, and if you go by road you might get pulled over by one of our vigilant police officers. So, we had these characters on the train, who I would describe as gangsters in suits, and they had their firearms with them. At times, there have also been undercover police on the train.

Anyone can walk on to any of those trains carrying whatever they like. You can walk straight into your cabin, or you can walk straight into the seating compartment, and carry whatever you like. That has always surprised me, and I have raised it before but nothing ever seems to be done about it. Likewise, I think a similar situation exists with the bus terminal. It is more difficult on an aircraft because of our security arrangements, but when it comes to rail and bus it is almost open slather.

I think something needs to happen in terms of being more vigilant. We do not want to create a situation where it becomes too costly or oppressive, or too draconian for the ordinary citizen. When I first came to this place, people could walk straight in from North Terrace up to the premier's office. We have had to change our ways here. I know it is painful at times with all of the security, but the reality is that the days of: trust us, and trust anyone coming in, have gone. So, now we do not have people walking straight in from North Terrace and up to the premier's office without going through some security arrangement.

I think this is a necessary measure. As I say, I hope it does not lead to too costly a burden on the operators. It needs to be sensible and not too draconian. One of the great things about Australia is that we do not live in anything remotely like a police state, but we should not be so naive as to think that there are not evil people and fanatics out there, whether they be religious or otherwise, who might wish to do harm to others. I think it is time, particularly for the bus services and interstate trains, that we take a close look at what people can take on board because, on my observation over many years and many trips, there is no restriction on what people can carry and do when they travel by bus or train.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:23): I support this bill. I think it is essential that we have counter-terrorism plans in place for all of the risk areas that we have. We must address those risk areas and ensure that it does not become too onerous. I also support the fact that these plans must be confidential. We cannot be telling the terrorists what our plans are. Hopefully, we never have to implement these plans. Hopefully, this country can remain a safe place, such as it is now, but we should always have decent plans in place so that we can ensure that this country remains safe. I support the bill.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure) (11:24): I thank members for their contributions. It appears that, although detail is sought, members are agreed upon the need for this bill. I will make a few short comments because it appears we are going to committee, and we can provide the detail then.

This is a bill that seeks to implement an intergovernmental agreement of 2005. It is addressed to surface transport because that was the subject of the intergovernmental agreement. It is unlike Victoria's broader act, which of course was implemented before that intergovernmental agreement. So, to understand why the bill does this, it is because it is implementing that intergovernmental agreement.

Of course, the bill, if passed, would only be operated where there was a change in the security level, which has not changed since 2003, and I hope it never does. I think it is very important to put on the record that it does not mean that nothing is done until there is a change in the security level. There are regular interactions between government agencies and those bodies that we believe might be at risk of terrorism.

SAPOL has done a number of exercises with a number of private sector people, addressing what might occur and what might need to be done. Of course, within government we have advanced security plans already in place and, in fact, conduct exercises with some of the more likely targets. For example, we have multi-government agency exercises to address what would happen were a security event to take place. So, we do all of that.

To say that these plans would be left in the bottom of the drawer is upsetting to me because that is certainly not the intention of the bill. There is only one reason that these plans are not automatically required to be delivered to the government or checked, and that is that I know that we do not want to create unnecessary bureaucracy or unnecessary red tape.

I know that the former member for Stuart, who was here for a long time, was a great champion of the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, and the truth is that a number of the people, the instrumentalities or the businesses that would be declared either contract with the government or are required to have those plans already in their contract. If the government already had plans, it would be peculiar if we were to set up a bureaucracy to check plans we had already drafted, signed off and placed into contract.

There may well be people we have dealt with over a long period of time who are fully aware, through our interaction with them, of what their provisions are. I would absolutely assure the house in debate—and it would not be just me but any minister properly advised—that if it were the case that we did not know whether a business had a sound plan and did not absolutely know that it was a sound plan, then we would require that and review it, because I assure you that everyone is risk averse these days. I have to say that most of the people we would be addressing this to, I can guarantee you, have had this on their mind for some time.

As I said, this is not the first thing that has happened. There has been a long history of interaction between government agencies like SAPOL and some of those businesses, and in fact even local government agencies, about what needs to occur. So, I can assure people that, if there was any doubt at all about what was contained in their plan, it would be caught up, it would be checked by our experts and we would make sure it was adequate for the circumstances.

I close by saying that I hope we never actually have to do this. It will only happen if the level of our security alert were to increase, and that is not something I ever want to see. I thank members for their contribution.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I refer generally to subclause (1) and paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I note that paragraph (a) refers to the requirement for you to 'identify a specified place, activity or system associated with, or relating to, the movement of people or goods by road, rail or water as a security identified surface transport operation'. Can you outline to the chamber some examples of those operations that it is your intention to declare?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I would prefer, if it is okay, to give you the criteria and not name names. In general terms, we would be identifying a land transport agency that either concentrated a number of people in one place, was of an iconic nature or had some other characteristic that, by pretty objective criteria, would make it a target. We would not be going out and seeking a plan for every bus stop or suchlike. You would understand that significant public transport interchanges and maybe shopping malls that have significant public transport interchanges, large-scale carriers of people or something iconic like the Ghan or the Overland would come under the criteria.

There is the capacity, if I or a future minister declares someone and they do not think it is right, to have that decision reviewed by judicial review, but I cannot imagine a mistake being made. The criteria are pretty clear. Terrorists are going to go where there are lots of people in one spot or where it causes significant economic damage or where it is an iconic target. Those would be the sort of criteria that we would be looking at.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I do respect that the minister is unable or not prepared to provide specific names and I do respect that confidentiality is important here, but he has certainly provided me with the outline of the areas that will be considered. However, I pose a further question to the minister: because this paragraph relates to the provision of goods and because they are so important to our society, is it also intended to look at goods such as electricity and gas and their transport?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Those matters that you refer to are not, in essence, goods, but fall more under the rubric of essential services. Of course, in the first instance those businesses deal with a regulator who sets, as I understand it, a number of standards. I can bring that information back for you, but as a former energy minister I can assure you that the essential services areas and their requirements have been the subject of focus by governments for a long time. It is a heavily regulated area and I think you will find that, either by regulation or act, there are already requirements upon them. I can get those details and provide them to you if you wish, but it is not necessary to deal with those in this bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I did expect that type of answer from the minister because they would have been identified very early on as an area where some security measures need to be imposed. Still referring to subclause (1), paragraph (b) talks about declaring a specified person to be the operator. I presume that you will want to get as high up the food chain as possible, so is it intended that the CEO or the CFO will be the specified person?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In most cases it would not be a natural person; it would be the body corporate, and the body corporate, I assume, would have the responsibility for nominating the actual human being who deals with that. We would deal with the body corporate. I assume that there would be circumstances where a number of bodies corporate are in a site, so I guess we would be looking for whoever has control of a location or enterprise more than others. For example, the Adelaide Railway Station might have a kiosk. It would not be the kiosk that we go to: it would be to the people who own the railway station.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The reason I pose the question is that the bill refers to 'the person', but it appears as though it is not the person: it is more the organisation itself.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is a common phrase that the law refers to a corporation as a legal person. That is what corporations are. There may be cases where they are not corporations, but I cannot imagine where that would be.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The next question relates to paragraph (c) where you specify the period within which the operator must prepare a plan. That leads me to the thought that different time lines are potentially in place for different operators. Can you provide some outline to the house on whether that is the fact?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The time lines might be different because, even though there is general criteria, some operations will be larger and more complex than others and it may be that they will have a more complex issue to deal with than a smaller operation. So, it seems appropriate that there might be different time lines for those bodies. In any case, we would certainly want things to be done as quickly as is reasonably possible.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I respect the fact that there will be different scopes for operations that need more effort to go into them, depending on what their previous contractual arrangements may have already required. However, on the basis that after you issue a notice they have some 14 days to lodge some form of appeal against that, can any appeal they lodge be based also around the fact that, while you and your staff may determine what you believe is the most appropriate time line for the operator, the appeal can actually consider the timing, not necessarily their declaration as a SISTO?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: As I understand it, the provision is not for an appeal but for submissions for us to take into account in making some determination. So, it would not be a process where an appeal is heard. As I said, it is not a formal appeal process which is heard and where submissions would be made. It might be the case where they object to the declaration, but that would not prevent any minister from making that declaration after considering the submissions.

Mr GRIFFITHS: On subclause (2), it was my intention to ask for some more specifics, especially in relation to paragraphs (a) through to (f), but, in recognising the answer that you provided from the very start, I understand that that is a bit difficult. I will just pose a question to you on paragraph (b), 'the number of passengers using the operation'. Again, I respect that there will be different sized organisations, but have you had some preliminary thoughts on a threshold figure for a tourism rail operator or a public transport operation? Do you have some figures for that?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will think about that and take some further advice. The fact is that one important criteria will be the number of people because, unfortunately, terrorists want to make a maximum impact. There may be other considerations, such as the vulnerability of a smaller group or the iconic nature of a smaller group. There would not be a specific number. There would be circumstances where a smaller number might be susceptible to an order and a larger number might not because of a range of other criteria. So, I do not think we would be tying ourselves up with arbitrary limits.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The reason I pose the question about, for example, whether it could be a tourism rail operator is that they are primarily based around volunteer efforts, and there is already a large amount of accreditation required to ensure their ongoing ability to run their trips. Even though they might be smaller in number, because they do have an iconic status, they would represent in some ways a 'ripe target'. I hate to say that term, but it might be a ripe target for somebody. Would there be a level of assistance provided by DTEI in that case, if you did determine that you wanted to identify them as a SISTO, to assist in the preparation of some form of planning?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is something that we can have a look at. We do assist, in any event, through interaction with people like SAPOL on the sort of thing that businesses need to do. That has been an ongoing process for a long time. In relation to things that are an iconic status—and I do not want to insult anyone running any volunteer railways—but I would find it hard to think of a volunteer railway in South Australia that would meet that sort of status. If that were the case, obviously we cannot expect people to do what they cannot do for themselves, but a plan would also be proportionate to the risk and the likelihood. I do not think the Goolwa Cockle Train will be declared.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I thank you for the answer. If I could now jump to subclause (4), and specifically as it relates to where the minister provides a notice in writing to the person (being the body corporate), providing that person with 14 days to make a submission. The minister has already referred to the fact that the opportunity for judicial review exists. Are you able to outline for the committee how that process would be undertaken, and who would actually consider it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The judicial review would be dealt with not by criteria we set, but there is a matter of longstanding remedies available in the court for what used to be referred to as 'judicial error', 'ultra vires' or 'anisminic'—asking the wrong question, taking the wrong approach or something like that. It is a limited area of review required, and from memory used to be founded on making what used to be called a judicial error, or an error in law. So you will not find the answer in the bill: you will find the answer in those many sets of precents in the common law.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In posing this question to the minister, I am presuming that there will be an ongoing level of dialogue occurring with these operators and there will be an acceptance of their need to be declared as a SISTO prior to you actually giving it anyway. It might be a very rare case where an operator may choose to believe that it has grounds for appeal. On the basis that the appeal is lodged, is the requirement that the plan actually be held in abeyance until that judicial review is considered?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That would be a matter for the court and they would need to seek injunctive remedy. I view would be that it is going to be cheaper to do a plan than to enter into a case of judicial review of doing a plan. It is going to be a lot cheaper, and I cannot imagine anyone doing that.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is a very important piece of legislation. Minister, I do understand the level of upset feelings that you had when I posed an issue before about 'putting it in the bottom drawer,' but I am only repeating to you what was told to me during a briefing. If we could now talk about the counterterrorism plan, can you provide to the committee details of who reviews it to determine its suitability? Is there a statutory requirement for the plan to come back to DTEI (or an office nominated for you) for review, or will some of the operators be determined to be of a lower scale, where there is no need for a review of the plan to actually be undertaken?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The mechanism is by the minister's discretion, to require it to come. As I said, I am not going to be checking a plan that we have already demanded from people when we contract with them, such as some of the bus route providers. I am not going to be asking for a plan that we know we drew up ourselves within the department for departmental services. The approach I would take is that if any operator was sufficient to be declared I would want to be satisfied that we know that they have a plan. If I was not satisfied with that I would want our people to check it.

The expertise is within our department and it is the same expertise that has drafted those provisions in the contracts that I described earlier. If it is not sufficient we have a problem already, but I believe it is sufficient. As I say, from my perspective the key consideration where an organisation declared would be: do we know that they have a plan?

You have to remember that many of those who would be declared are very obvious, as we have a long history of interaction with them and we know very much about what they have already done, but if there was any doubt then we would want to check it. The provision is not there so that we do not know what is in it. The provision is there not to be unnecessarily bureaucratic. I think we can provide you with some commonwealth guidelines. This is an intergovernmental agreement. There are some commonwealth guidelines that we would be looking at in that regard, if you want to have a look at them. It is not very exciting reading though.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I may not have reviewed the legislation to the depth that the minister and his staff have, but I was unable to find a specific requirement that actually talked about the fact of ministerial review. That is why I posed the question. The obvious ones are where contractual arrangements are in place. I understand that completely; no debate. However, I am presuming there will be some operators that are declared that will not have a contract in place, and therefore no formal links with government. Indeed, that is why I am posing the question: because I cannot find it specifically proposed to be legislated.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am not entirely sure what you mean, but the provision is that the minister may require the production of a plan. I would take advice on the quality of that plan from our experts. I would not review it myself to determine whether I thought it was right; I would take advice.

On whether I or any other minister would ask for that plan, I can tell you my approach would be that I would take no risks. Anyone who is a minister learns very quickly that not taking risks is a very good way to do your job. We rely on advice and if the advice to a minister was that, 'We have declared these people and we do not know if they have a plan,' you are going to be making sure they see it. That is the structure. Any decision made by a minister in this regard will not be made by virtue of their own knowledge of the circumstances, but on the advice of experts.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Minister, I certainly respect that is how the process should operate. I understand that completely. If I can pose a different question: on the basis that all the plans are in place and have been verified, signed off and everybody is happy, is it an expectation that they will identify a review period and will that review period be consistent across all TANs? Alternatively, will there be identification of some operators being at a greater risk level, in which case they will have a shorter period between which the plan authorisation and the plan review is to be undertaken?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The guidelines in terms of once someone is declared and they have to have a plan. The whole nature of the plan is the risk management strategy so, if there is a change in circumstance, the guidelines contemplate that there is a change in circumstances and obligate the operator to change their plan to manage the risk, and there is significant penalty if they do not do that properly. I think it is probably worth making the point at this time that what we are seeking people to do under this is precisely what a prudent operator does in any operation.

Every operator of a business has risk management: if it is a risk of accident, they have insurance; if it is a risk of terrorism, they have plans; and, if circumstances change, they are required to change. We do not have a pro forma plan; the plan must suit the particular enterprise and, if the enterprise changes, then the plans should change to manage that risk.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister has talked around the question I posed, and I recognise that it is probably impossible to give specifics to it. I suppose I asked the question because for me it is important—as I quoted in my second reading contribution—for it to be part of the thought processes of the organisation or the operator at all times.

It is imperative, to my mind, that it be front and centre that, yes, they have the plan in place, but it is more than just what is written on the paper; it is the way that the business is conducted to ensure that security measures are in place. Because businesses and operations of all kinds have an enormous variety of pressures placed upon them which make it necessary to determine priorities, indeed, of what will be undertaken as part of their operational matters, I consider this to be part of their operational matters also.

The reason I posed the question was to ensure that if there is a regular review period and that if, for some of the more priority operators, it is a shorter time frame for a regular review period—or no matter if it is a longer time—it ensures that it is front and centre with operators. Because I cannot find it in the legislation, I am still interested to hear from the minister where—and I understand that their circumstances will change—the operator will ensure, therefore, that they adjust their plan. Does that mean that the plan goes to DTEI for review again to ensure its suitability again?

I am caught up in a process here to ensure that it is correct, because I want to make sure that there is confidence within the house that, first and foremost, the operators—and we are trying to ensure that the impost is not onerous upon them—have this as part of their mindset to ensure that they provide safe opportunities for people and goods.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Firstly, if we look at subclause (6), there are regulation-making powers, particularly, I think the one you are referring to is (6)(c), 'requiring a plan to be reviewed and updated at specified intervals or following specified events'.

We want to make sure that, while we require people to have proper plans and do proper things, we do not want to be in there attempting to run businesses or interfere with businesses unnecessarily because, I think in all of these matters a balance has to be achieved. If we were being unnecessarily intrusive, I am sure that we would hear from your side of the chamber that we were hurting business when risks were too small. So, in all of these things there is a balance, but I refer you to those regulation-making powers.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The CHAIR: May I ask you, member for Goyder, will you be speaking on every clause?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No.

Ms Chapman: Why not?

The CHAIR: Well, your colleague says 'Why not?'

Mr GRIFFITHS: I indicate that I have no questions on clause 8 or, indeed, on clause 11 and beyond.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The CHAIR: I do not think that has anything to do with the surface transport security.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The banter across the chamber is interesting. This clause deals with the maximum penalty in place for those that do not comply with the requirements, but can I pose a question and get the minister's response on the record: what are the minister's expectations of the time allowed for the provision of these plans?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will take advice on that. We are at a security level where no-one will be declared at present. I will probably take advice if the security level changes. I am quite happy to take advice from some of the bureaucrats, but I will do that on advice from those people.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I can certainly understand when you talk about security level changes, but I took this clause as relating to the provision of information for the first plan they have to prepare, no matter what form of review takes place later on. When you declare an operator—be it government-related or not, through contractual situations, or some form of private operator that has an important aspect of what it provides—is it one month, two months, three months, 12 months?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If I understand it correctly, you are talking about after everything is done and they have been required to develop a plan. Obviously, there are time frames for developing the plan; you are talking about in what time I would expect them to produce a plan.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, it is not stated in the legislation, but my answer would be—and I will check this with these people—that if it has come after they have had time to prepare the plan as requested, I would expect it to be produced forthwith. I think that having been given a statutory amount of time to prepare a plan—and I think there are differences in that, depending on the seriousness and the depth of the plan—they should be able to produce the plan forthwith.

I guess we turn our minds to what is a reasonable time, in business, to produce something you should already have. My understanding is that they should already have this, so I do not see why they should have any excuse for not producing it forthwith.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not sure whether or not the minister and I have crossed wires here. I am actually talking about the provision of the first plan, where you have issued the declaration for them to be a SISTO.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If we go back, from memory there are earlier provisions that require them to produce a plan within a certain period of time; so they will be given a certain period of time to make that plan. My understanding of clause 7 is that it deals with after those people have been required to make a plan in a certain period of time, and the issue about whether or not we demand the production of it. For example, we might give TransAdelaide a period of time to develop a plan but, knowing that it already has one, we are never going to exercise clause 7, and we are probably not going to give them a lot of time to develop a plan, knowing that they already have one.

My understanding of how it works is that we give a period of time to an organisation, that period has expired, and, on advice to me by the experts that we do not know enough about the plan and should have a look at it, we would expect them to be able to supply it forthwith. I cannot imagine why they should not be able to do that. If someone said, 'Look, the officer in charge of that is away and will be back on Monday,' I think we might be comfortable with that. I do not see why, the earlier period of time having expired (and I cannot imagine we would demand a production before the earlier period of time had expired) it should not be produced forthwith or within a reasonable period of time.

Having given the organisation a period of time to develop the plan, it does not have another period of time to develop it because they have not done it—this is for the production of it. As I said, there are organisations that we can guarantee will not be asked to produce it. If we ask an organisation to produce a plan, I cannot see any reason why it should not be able to do it immediately.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think the minister and I are at cross-purposes again because I understood everything before clause 7 to set out the requirements for the issues to be contained within the plan and that clause 7 actually sets out the requirement to provide the plan. That is why my question was about clause 7. Clause 7 states:

The operator of a security identified surface transport operation must, at the request of a person authorised by the Minister, provide the person with—

(a) a copy of the counter terrorism plan...

This is in the first instance and on the basis that you or one of your staff has requested the plan. What is the time frame for that?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If we go back to clause 5(1)(c), it states:

(c) specify the period within which the operator must prepare a counter terrorism plan in accordance with this Act.

We would set a time according to the needs of proper judgement. Once that is completed, then clause 7 might require it to be produced. As I say, I do not see why, having been through the period of time specified in clause 5(1)(c), they would not be able to produce it forthwith. If they were not able to produce it forthwith, I think we would want an explanation.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I confirm that I have no more questions about clauses 7, 8 and 9.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 and 9 passed.

Clause 10.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Again, we certainly support the inclusion of this clause as it relates to confidentiality because of the absolute need to ensure that no other people without authority gain access to information. I wonder whether the minister can provide an example of somebody making a report on the basis that they feel as though there is an unauthorised copy of a plan floating around somewhere. If it comes into the minister's office, what measures—and I certainly respect the hard-working, efficient bureaucracy that exists within all departments to ensure that there is no possibility of a plan getting out—are taken to ensure that, for example, electronic copies are read only and not items that are able to be forwarded on to anyone else?

You cannot have copies of things floating around like we had with the RAH and where a lot of details contained within a computer disk were subsequently lost. How do you ensure that there is no possibility of that confidentiality being breached?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You are asking me to ensure that human beings will behave according to law or not make a mistake. I am not going to guarantee that one. This is pretty straightforward and, from memory, it is almost a boilerplate clause. I have seen these sorts of provisions in any number of regulatory acts where companies are required to provide information for the purposes of regulation but which is commercially sensitive and which they would want to protect from competitors. You are asking if I can guarantee that no-one will do that. No, I cannot, but I cannot guarantee it in those 100 other regulatory acts, either. It is certainly not a common occurrence and we would not expect it to occur under this act, either.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (11 to 14) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure) (12:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT