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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (26), (62) and (68) on sheet 5139:

(26)  Clause 25, page 21 (after line 6), after subclause (1), insert:

     (1A)    Before appointing a person to be the Inspector of Transport Security, the Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives.

(62) Page 55 (after line 27), after clause 64, insert:

64A Final report must be given to Leader of Opposition

80A Leader of Opposition to be kept informed

These amendments deal with what we suggest should be matters of right pertaining to information provided to the Leader of the Opposition. For example, amendment (26) seeks to insert a new subclause which pertains to a process to be undertaken prior to the appointment of the Inspector of Transport Security requiring the minister to consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives.

Amendment (62) relates to the provision by the minister of a copy of each final report of the Inspector of Transport Security to the Leader of the Opposition, specifying that it is the duty of the Leader of the Opposition not to 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).

Amendment (68) would insert a new clause 80A. It specifies that the Inspector of Transport Security—not the minister—would:

... consult regularly with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives for the purpose of keeping him or her informed on transport security matters and offshore security matters considered by the Inspector.

It is important that the holder of this important position maintain the confidence of the opposition as well as the government in relation to the performance of the inspector’s functions and in relation to the office. It would certainly be important that the sort of communication that the new clause 80A would require would be kept between the inspector and the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that there was confidence that the task was being performed as the parliament would expect. One would have thought that any holder of the office would be very keen to ensure that he or she retained the confidence of the parliament, not simply the executive government, in the performance of their task. We think that that is a very important and useful provision—useful, in fact, for the holder of the office in conducting their function on an ongoing basis.

We have already touched on the proposed new clause 64A, but the opposition believes it is critically important that the full final report by the Inspector of Transport Security be provided to the Leader of the Opposition, and we are very happy to specify that that be subject to the Leader of the Opposition having a duty to maintain in confidence any part of the report that is not tabled in parliament or not disclosed in the statement tabled in accordance with paragraph 64(1)(c). The government says that it follows a practice of keeping the opposition briefed about security matters. So what better practice than to keep the Leader of the Opposition in the loop about the Inspector of Transport Security’s reports and statements made to the parliament arising from the reports, in a way that is not censored by the executive government but is the subject of the embargo on publication or release by the Leader of the Opposition of any information that is not tabled in the parliament?

In amendment (26), the proposed new subclause 25(1A) requires the minister to consult with the Leader of the Opposition prior to appointing a person to be the Inspector of Transport Security. Again, this is a provision which is squarely aimed at ensuring that there is maintained confidence of the parliament in the position and confidence in the process of appointment so that this position is not seen as a partisan position and one which is subject to the discrediting that occurs when any party in this system seeks to appoint people to positions, firstly, without consultation and, secondly, without regard for the proper qualifications and standing of the person being appointed to the position.

We believe that these amendments, taken together, form a consistent approach to the appointment, performance and processes of the Inspector of Transport Security—making sure that the opposition can maintain confidence in the position. We think it is in the interests of the overall effectiveness of the position for that confidence to be maintained. We think the government should seriously consider accepting the amendments, as they would do absolutely no harm to the legislation and would, in fact, enhance it.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened to Senator O’Brien’s comments. Of course, we do agree that it is important that the opposition and, indeed, all members of the public have confidence in this process. Dealing with Senator O’Brien’s points: as I understand it, the opposition would like to see the Leader of the Opposition consulted on the appointment of the Inspector of Transport Security. I understand that the basis for proposing this amendment is that the opposition has likened the role of the Inspector of Transport Security to that of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. But they are very different roles. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security oversights Australia’s intelligence agencies; the Inspector of Transport Security will conduct no-blame investigations. On my advice, the role of the Inspector of Transport Security is more akin to the role of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which conducts no-blame investigations into safety incidents. 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 in relation to this bill. Senator O’Brien now has that on the record.

Lastly, I think the opposition would also like to see all final reports tabled in parliament. I acknowledge the importance of public accountability in relation to the activities of the Inspector of Transport Security—and Senator O’Brien makes a perfectly valid point about it. I cannot on behalf of the minister or the government guarantee that, in every possible instance, it will be appropriate for a final report to be tabled in parliament. Therefore, the public interest test that allows a report to be tabled in parliament is, I think, an appropriate test. It is already in the bill and, in our view, it should remain.

The government takes the view that, whilst some of the comments made by Senator O’Brien in support of his amendments are valid, they are really unnecessary amendments, and we do not propose to support unnecessary amendments. I do want to place on the record the fact that the government is appreciative of the opposition’s support for the bill. I do look forward to its passage when we get through the rest of the amendments.

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

The minister’s latter comments about the provision to require the tabling of reports is in the next block of amendments—and I will come to that. In relation to the analogy that the minister makes of this position being somewhat akin to the role of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau—if I heard her correctly—my understanding is that the bureau does not make reports subject to a determination by the minister as to whether they are published. Whilst they do go through a process, and there is a consultation process, the reports are made public without a decision by the minister as to whether they are public or not. In other words, the decision about what is in the report is finally in the hands of ATSB, and the reports are, in fact, all published. That is my understanding. We do not take that position.

What we say about reports being published I will deal with in the next amendment, but we do say that there ought to be consultation about the reports in full. We acknowledge that there may well be sensitive matters in reports which may not be appropriate to be published—for example, matters which disclose gaps in Australia’s transport security regime. The government, I presume, would be equally of the view that they should not be published so that those who would seek to make use of them to the detriment of the public do not have that information. Those matters are self-evident to the opposition; nevertheless, we do believe that those aspects of any reports by the Inspector of Transport Security, for example, ought to be conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition with the caveat that they not be publicly revealed. That is the position we take.

I hear what the minister says about the analogy we drew earlier, but I would say equally—or perhaps on an even greater basis—that the analogy that the minister draws with ATSB is not one which justifies resistance to the position we take. We would not equate this position to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, because we know of no reasons why that bureau should not publish its findings. In fact, we think it is very important that ATSB do publish its findings so that the travelling public can be aware of how their interests are being looked after and any issues which they should expect the government or its agencies to act upon to improve the safety of the travelling public. We do not have exactly the same expectation of the Inspector of Transport Security. We think that, as far as possible, these matters should be drawn to the public’s attention, but we do concede that some matters would not be appropriate to be drawn to the public’s attention.

We do believe that, for full confidence in this position to be held by the parliament, there should be full disclosure to at least the Leader of the Opposition, and that is why we press our amendment. I reject the analogy that the minister made. I urge the government to embrace what would be a requirement rather than a practice, and I do remind the government that one does not know who will be in government in this country in the future. It would be better, in our view, if this were a requirement rather than the fiat of a particular executive as to what they would or would not do in relation to a security circumstance. We think it would be much better if these matters were prescribed in the legislation. A Labor government would be quite happy to be constrained by such provisions. We put them forward on the basis that we would be happy to live by them and be bound by them, and we suggest to the government that they do no harm in the legislation, particularly if the government feels that, in a sense, they would do that anyway.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Briefly, I should say that the similarity with ATSB that I alluded to in my earlier comments was meant in the sense that, in that process, there is no blame. It is a no-blame inquiry process. The focus here is on making recommendations to improve transport security. That is the entire focus of it—not to attribute blame. To repeat my earlier assurance, if I could put it in those terms, the government has always taken the view that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed on issues of national security. That position will continue, so far as this government is concerned, in relation to the matters that are the subject of this particular bill. The government is of the view that it adequately deals with the opposition’s view that the Leader of the Opposition should be briefed.

Question negatived.

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

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, I got ahead of myself during my last comments; for some reason I did not have a running sheet. Obviously, my comments have been taken on board by Senator O’Brien because he has now addressed them in moving these amendments. The public interest test does allow a report to be tabled in parliament. That is already in the bill. The legislation does not preclude tabling of reports. Of course, other forms of accountability do apply to activities of the Inspector of Transport Security. And ministers have to turn up and answer questions that may be asked about the inspector’s activities at any time, including in the parliament. Public accountability is important. We think that the public interest test will allow a report to be tabled in parliament when it is appropriate and that the bill adequately deals with the opposition’s point.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

INSPECTOR OF TRANSPORT SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2006

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Bill agreed to.

Inspector of Transport Security Bill 2006 and Inspector of Transport Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2006 reported without amendment; report adopted.