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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (25), (28) to (56) and (63) to (67) on sheet 5139 together:

(1)    Clause 10, page 10 (lines 7 and 8), omit subclause (2), substitute:

        (2)    The Inspector may inquire into such matters in accordance with a direction from the Minister or in accordance with section 11A.

(2)   Page 11 (after line 18), after clause 11, insert:

11A Inspector may decide to conduct inquiry

The first principle that we would seek to be enshrined in this legislation is a degree of independence vested in the Inspector of Transport Security. As I indicated in my contribution to the second reading debate, the framework for independent inquiry and recommendations in relation to transport security matters and offshore security matters is subject to authorisation by the minister. I understand that Minister Vaile has made some statements about this bill, but, frankly, he has not adequately dealt with the justification for the minister being in a position to limit the ability of the Inspector of Transport Security to conduct an inquiry. If we are passing legislation to empower the inspector, then the inspector, having been appointed, ought to have enough latitude to inquire into matters as he or she sees fit.

In our view the independence of the inspector would be dependent on the absence of such a limitation. Without these amendments we could, of course, see the Inspector of Transport Security, in dispute with the minister, wishing to inquire into significant matters affecting the security of Australian travellers while, for political reasons, the minister might wish to constrain the inspector. The opposition think that is bad principle. We think that, upon reflection, the government ought to change their view and empower the inspector—if they have any confidence in the position that they are creating—to conduct an inquiry into matters without the limitation that the bill currently contains.

So we will be persisting with these amendments, which, in effect, give the inspector the power to investigate on his or her own motion matters relating to the federal jurisdiction. We do think that, in relation to investigating matters in other jurisdictions, there ought to be an amount of consultation about those inspections, given that, of course, the issue of constitutional power may arise and the Commonwealth cannot exceed its constitutional capacity in this regard. We are unaware what issues the inspector might seek to investigate which might be within the realm of state power and we would not want to constrain the inspector from investigating those matters, subject to agreement by the state jurisdiction to such an inspection taking place. In a sense, that is the impact of the group of amendments which I have moved. I commend them to the Senate.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition have moved a series of amendments which would affect the bill and the government will be opposing them; however, I do want to respond briefly. We believe it is very much the minister’s responsibility—he is, of course, responsible to the parliament for his decisions—to initiate inquiries into major transport security issues, or even a series of minor incidents that may alert the minister to the possibility of a weakness in the system that it may be of public benefit to inquire into, or offshore security matters that may have implications for Australian transport and facilities security.

Apart from the fact that the minister is required under this bill to initiate the investigation by the inspector, the inspector is otherwise entirely independent as to how the investigation is conducted and as to the content of the report, which may of course be tabled in the parliament. The only reason it would not be tabled in the parliament is if the public interest test suggested that it was not in the public interest to have it tabled. That would seem, on the surface of it, to be a good out for a government that did not want to table it, but in many of these instances it would be very much in the public interest to have it tabled. In inquiries into either major domestic or major international transport security issues, I am sure that even the opposition would understand that there may well be public interest involved in not tabling some reports. The government is satisfied that ministerial initiation of these inquiries by the inspector is the appropriate way to go. As I said, the minister is responsible for bringing those decisions back to the parliament.

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

The opposition understand why the government might seek to maintain political control over these matters. We have seen how the government chooses to approve and not approve inquiries which are proposed to be initiated through this chamber. Clearly, it makes decisions based on what it sees as its political imperatives. It may be that it sees that as justified in this case but, frankly, we are dealing with an office appointed under the law of the parliament and with the responsibility to investigate flaws in our national transport system.

I have yet to hear anything which would indicate in specific terms the matters the inspector ought to be constrained from investigating. I have heard no examples of the sorts of things that would be inappropriate for the inspector to investigate. It may be, and we would concede, that any final report tabled in the parliament might have to have references to sensitive matters removed, although we believe there should be consultation between the government and the opposition about those sensitive matters in the way that I have outlined. We will deal with that further in relation to a confidential consultation process with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, for example, about these important security issues, with a clear commitment to confidentiality.

We do not understand why the minister should limit the inquiry power of the inspector. We do not understand what sorts of matters would be inappropriate for the inspector to investigate. We are keen for the government to tell us and the public what sorts of matters would be inappropriate for the Inspector of Transport Security to investigate and what its concerns really are about the provision that we propose. On the face of it, the only understanding that we can have of the government’s opposition to our amendments is that it wants to retain political power to prevent the inspector from inquiring into matters which might be politically embarrassing to the government. If those are the grounds then we would understand why that is what the government is putting forward. I do not think the Australian people will support that view, but at least we will understand it. But if the government has some other concern then we ask the government to place it on the record so that we and the Australian people can understand it.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will address the two points. Firstly, in relation to consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, the government has always taken the view that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed on issues of national security, and that position will continue under this bill. On a further point, in relation to reports of the inspector, the bill already provides that the minister may provide the final report to any person, including the Leader of the Opposition. This judgement will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the public interest. Once again, I make the point that this government has always taken the view that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed on issues of national security. We know that is done on a confidential basis and that, with only one famous exception, that has always been abided by.

I should also add that, in relation to the issue of the initiation of investigations by the inspector, the answer to the question was in my first intervention in this debate. The minister will be responsible for his decisions. Under the Westminster system—which we are proud and lucky to live under in this country—he is responsible to the parliament for his decisions. He or she will front up here at question time and be accountable to the parliament. If there is a matter that any member or senator thinks should be investigated and is not being investigated, the minister is responsible. You cannot be more accountable than that.

If Senator O’Brien decides next March that the minister is not initiating an investigation into a security matter, then Senator O’Brien can ask me as the minister representing or he can get one of his comrades in the lower house to ask the minister himself. That is how this system works. It is ultimately accountable; it is not for the political benefit of the government. It is a system that is very accountable and it makes the minister responsible for the decision to task the inspector with an action under this legislation.

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

I understand, then, that the government’s position is to seek to maintain political control over these decisions if it is not prepared to indicate what sorts of inquiries would be inappropriate for the inspector to conduct. We understand that position. In relation to our amendment proposing new clause 64A, I heard the minister suggest that the government is disposed to brief the opposition on security matters. I fail to understand why the government is then not prepared to commit in the legislation to giving a copy of each final report of the Inspector of Transport Security to the Leader of the Opposition. The amendment states:

... the Leader of the Opposition must not disclose any part of the report or information in a report that is not tabled in Parliament or that is not disclosed in a statement tabled in Parliament in accordance with paragraph 64(1)(c).

That seems to indicate that the government reserves the right to withhold from the Leader of the Opposition matters contained in such a report. Given the minister’s earlier statement, can the minister explain why the government will not be supporting at least that amendment?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because, as I have already explained, the status quo, the position as it stands now, allows the Leader of the Opposition to receive a final report. This government has always taken the view that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed on issues of national security, and that position will continue with this bill. It does not need to be written into the law because it is the situation as it stands. This is what the government does and this is what previous governments have done. It is part of the protocol that exists. As I have said, it has only been breached, in any significant way that I can recall, by one Leader of the Opposition—and in quite spectacular fashion—a couple of years ago.

Question negatived.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien, please proceed to your next amendment.

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

I note the government do not support enshrining principles in legislation but are content to rely on custom and practice, which may change between governments—who knows. I move opposition amendment (27) on sheet 5139:

(27)  Clause 25, page 21 (line 9), omit subclause (3), substitute:

        (3)    The Inspector must be appointed on a full-time basis.

It is a very simple amendment—that is, that the Inspector of Transport Security must be appointed on a full-time basis. The opposition do not believe this is or should be a part-time role. The opposition do not believe that this role should be tailored to the availability of any particular candidate for the office if they are not available on a full-time basis. We think this is an important position and have done since the government announced that they would appoint someone, but then the government appointed someone who effectively works a day a week. We think it is important that the legislation is passed so that the person appointed to the position would actually have the authority of the parliament to conduct the inspector’s role. We are not satisfied with a sometimes active, sometimes passive, Inspector of Transport Security.

If we are to accept the government’s cautions about the nature of the terrorist threat to Australia and if we have regard to occurrences in other parts of the world where transport modes have been substantial targets for terrorism, what is the justification for this position not to be filled on a full-time basis? We have not heard such a justification from the government. If it is said that someone is to be appointed to a position which is less than full time because that is their wish, that in our opinion is not good enough. If the issue is that the government does not believe that the public purse should be stretched to pay for this position on a full-time basis, we think that is not good enough. There is no doubt that there is enough work in our transport sector to occupy an Inspector of Transport Security on a full-time basis. Therefore, we do not believe that it should be open to appoint a person to this position on anything less. That is the basis of this amendment. If the government is fair dinkum with this legislation, we would expect it to support the amendment.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The inspector is working very effectively on a part-time basis now. If the workload demands that he or a future inspector—who may in fact be a she—needs to work on a full-time basis, the legislation provides for that as well. Labor is saying, ‘Make sure you have a full-time person on full pay,’ when you actually do not need that. We are saying, ‘Let’s be flexible.’ Legislation as it is coined is appropriate.

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

The opposition do not accept that this position functions properly on a part-time basis. We have been critical of the fact that, in its current guise, the practice has been for the occupant of the position to be effectively conducting a public relations exercise and not inquiring into security and dealing with the problems of our security system. We think that is likely to continue with a part-time officer. We do not think that is good enough. We will be pursuing this matter and I am sure that our shadow spokesman for homeland security will be making statements about the lack of commitment this government has to the full-time filling of this position. The government is not fair dinkum in relation to the passage of this legislation. This is more spin by this government on the issue of security where it is not prepared to face up to the responsibility of appointing somebody on a full-time basis and making that a requirement in the legislation.

Question negatived.

Progress reported.