Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (57) to (61) on sheet 5139:

(57)  Clause 64, page 55 (lines 2 to 4), omit subclause (1), substitute:

        (1)    Subject to this section, in relation to each final report the Minister receives, the Minister must table in the Parliament a copy of:

             (a)    the final report; or

             (b)    a part of the final report; or

             (c)    if the Minister thinks that it is, on balance, not in the public interest to table the final report or a part of the final report—a document concerning the final report prepared and signed by the Inspector setting out such details as the Inspector thinks, on balance, it is in the public interest to present to the Parliament.

(58) Clause 64, page 55 (line 6), after “report”, insert “or a document concerning a final report”.

(59) Clause 64, page 55 (line 14), after “report”, insert “or a document concerning a final report”.

(60) Clause 64, page 55 (line 18), after “report”, insert “or a document concerning a final report”.

(61) Clause 64, page 55 (line 22), after “report”, insert “or a document concerning a final report”.

These amendments pertain to the matter that the minister alluded to some time earlier, in the debate about the last block of amendments. These amendments require the minister to table the final reports, or at least a part of the reports, on particular matters by the Inspector of Transport Security before the parliament. They also give the minister some discretion in the matter by specifying that the minister must table:

… if the Minister thinks that it is, on balance, not in the public interest to table the final report or a part of the final report—a document concerning the final report prepared and signed by the Inspector setting out such details as the Inspector thinks, on balance, it is in the public interest to present to the Parliament.

The opposition believes that, as far as is possible and practicable, the work of the Inspector of Transport Security should be transparent. Findings which are made and the nature of the work ought to be known to the public. They are paying for it. This is not something that the government pays for out of moneys acquired other than from the taxpayer. The taxpayer is entitled to know what is being done on their behalf. But we accept that it is appropriate to retain some information because its publication may be harmful to the public, such as in the circumstances I outlined earlier where revealing information to those who would harm the public would assist them to do so.

We think we have balanced this provision appropriately, giving some discretion to the minister but requiring some information be published indicating the work of the Inspector of Transport Security and the sorts of issues being investigated. We believe that, if the public were made aware of the work being done and that work was substantial, they would feel more comfortable about the transport security regime that they travel within and that affects their lives. So we think it is vital that the reports prepared detailing the work of the inspector be, insofar as is appropriate, made available to the public.

I cannot imagine why an Inspector of Transport Security would not be happy to do that. It is a responsible position. I would think the inspector would want the public to know that they were carrying out their position to the best of their ability in areas clearly relevant to the concerns of the public in terms of transport safety. I cannot think of a better way for this information to be made available.

The other amendments go to the same point. The substantial amendment is the one I have outlined, amendment (57), and consequential amendments are contained in amendments (58) to (61) on sheet 5139. It sounds as though the decision has been made that none of these amendments put forward—constructively, I might say—by the opposition meet favour with the government. As the government has the majority in this chamber, the government is able to defeat these amendments. The opposition has put these all forward on the basis that we think we would be improving the regime the government is proposing. Of course, if the government uses its numbers to defeat the amendments, we nevertheless will support this legislation on the third reading.

We have been waiting a very long time for the government to bring this legislation before the parliament. The longer it has taken, the more we have wondered about the seriousness of the government with regard to the position of Inspector of Transport Safety and the regime that has been talked up by the government, although up until now very little has actually been done about it. We still have concerns in relation to provisions which will allow this position to be filled on a part-time basis but, as I said, we have approached this on the basis of trying to obtain the best possible regime for this position.

Clearly, the position is important, although, if it continues to be filled on an occasional or part-time basis, if the officer appointed to the position under this legislation continues to be seconded to other work, leaving the position vacant, if the government continues to appoint temporary position holders who clearly do not perform the same work as the Inspector of Transport Safety, then that will no doubt weaken, in our minds—and certainly in the public’s mind—the way that the position is seen and the importance that we believe the government attaches to the position.

I urge the government to support these amendments, although I must say I do not have a great hope that it will. As I said, we will support the legislation nevertheless, but we think it will be inferior legislation for the lack of these amendments.