The decision to spend $108 million to upgrade security at Parliament House appears to be a sad necessity but is nevertheless prompting some valid questioning.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The dynamic at play is the constant tension between protecting parliamentarians and the public, while simultaneously providing adequate access to the institution as is expected in a democracy such as ours. There is also tension between what can be - or should be - disclosed publicly about planned security works, and alerting the wrong people to a vulnerability in a particular area.
In response to the heightened terrorist threat environment in Australia announced in September last year, Parliament's presiding officers agreed to the establishment of a multi-agency task force to review security arrangements. Immediate changes were an increased presence of armed Australian Federal Police officers, both inside and outside the building, and tighter access pass requirements for visitors and guests. Then followed comprehensive building works at the entry points, in the largest project of this type since the building was constructed in the 1980s.
This year both houses of Parliament approved without debate a $2 million plan to upgrade perimeter security around the ministerial wing, with a 2.6-metre high steel fence and two bulletproof, concrete gatehouses. It is believed further physical security enhancements are under consideration, including widespread installation of bulletproof glass and more security fencing, possibly screening the Senate and the House of Representatives wings.
t is notable that the security upgrades will not impede this freedom.
However, while the projects may be necessary, they must still be open to scrutiny. Accordingly, the Senate established an inquiry into the plans to fortify the national legislature and it has held one hearing, part of which was behind closed doors. Officers of the embattled Department of Parliamentary Services erred quickly towards caution when asked any details, during the public session. In the area of security, secrecy has become synonymous with normality, and probably for good reason in most cases.
Because you never know who might be eavesdropping - as is so capably demonstrated by ASIO which has prevented probable terrorist attacks on Australian soil by intercepting calls and swooping on suspects before they could unleash their plot.
In the inquiry's public hearing, Senators were told the two new gatehouses were needed, despite four guardhouses, built at the time of construction of the building in the 1990s, being abandoned. The gatehouses have a different function - to screen people entering the building - an unavoidable necessity in the post-9/11 era but, notably, one that preserves access.
Parliament House security will be taken up again on Monday at Estimates where DPS, which recently lost its secretary, will be called to account for its stewardship of the project, while treading the delicate path of not revealing secrets.
