Mr McCLELLAND (2:46 PM) —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. In addition to the transfer of Mick Palmer from his position as Inspector of Transport Security to undertake the Rau inquiry, did the Deputy Prime Minister also approve the transfer of a number of key staff employed by Mr Palmer while he was transport security inspector? Why did the minister authorise this diversion of resources? Why did the minister fail to advise the House about the diversion of resources when asked about these matters last week? Doesn’t the diversion of resources from this important area show that the government puts its own political crises ahead of the security of Australia’s travelling public?

Mr ANDERSON (Minister for Transport and Regional Services) —The answer to the last part of the question is no. To put this into some perspective, as I have explained to the House, the inspector position is a part-time role. It is a belt and braces approach to investigations, should they tragically become necessary, into any failures that result in a terrorist attack. The clear implication behind the question is that somehow the ongoing monitoring and auditing of our aviation safety arrangements are compromised because key personnel are being pulled out. That is the clear implication. In fact, that is not the case. I want to reiterate that Mr Palmer would be available again on very short notice should we need him.

I want to make the point that the ongoing work about which the member might reasonably be concerned is carried forward by the Office of Transport Security. To put it into some perspective, there are approximately 245 people there charged with those responsibilities. In fact, what the shadow minister asked about refers to two other staff members who worked part-time assisting Mr Palmer with the Rau inquiry. All expenses involved in that inquiry were paid for by DIMIA. The salary of the two officers over that period—some $14,000—was absorbed by my department. There has been no compromise in aviation safety or the maintenance of the regime. I have to say that I believe it is mischievous, unfortunate and unhelpful for the Labor Party to continue in this vein. I do not believe there is any place for a scare campaign as opposed to legitimate and informed questioning about aviation security arrangements in this country, and I think the Leader of the Opposition could, quite frankly, adopt a bit higher a tone.