Mr ANDREN (Calare) (5.37 p.m.)—I moved an amendment to the Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002 in the Main Committee earlier this week because I had received numerous submissions from people within my electorate, from the pilots of planes and, today, from the light aircraft fraternity. As opposed to the two-year imprisonment that had been suggested, my amendment says:

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman) (5.39 p.m.)—As the House appreciates, the Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002 clearly has a major focus on transport safety. In the light of discussions and having heard the comments by the member for Calare, I am pleased to indicate that Labor support the amendment moved by the member for Calare. While our support for this amendment could not be described as reluctant, it is the opposition’s view that the amendment avoids the potential for an extreme penalty on a person copying a draft investigation report. In the mind of the opposition, that would be a very extreme case. In all honesty, the opposition doubt that the two-year penalty for copying would ever be used, but we have been persuaded to remove that potential.

The opposition considered the issue in the context of the tragic Whyalla accident. As I think we all appreciate, the families and interested parties received a copy of the draft report on the Whyalla accident, and I firmly believe that it was absolutely correct that they did so—it confirmed facts for the families, and I think it is exceptionally important that they knew the latest information. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that, at that time, copies of that report unfortunately went beyond those to whom it was given.

Mr ANDREN (Calare) (5.40 p.m.)—On indulgence, I do not know whether the member for Batman is aware of the fact that I have had negotiations with the government around my amendment. There seems to be some insistence from the minister’s office that paragraphs (a) and (b) be included in a revised amendment. I was advised to move my initial amendment. I intend to move a revised amendment. Assuming that that original one may be voted down, I will then move a revised amendment.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman) (5.42 p.m.)—I appreciate that but I thought that, despite the knowledge of the issue just shared by the member for Calare, it was better to make the comments and deal with it all in terms of the issue currently before the chair. Unfortunately, with respect to the Whyalla accident, the report went beyond those to whom it was originally agreed should have access to the report. Unfortunately, at that time I was personally lobbied by a key aviation identity who had an axe to grind and wanted the opposition to make a public comment on the draft report, to try to access copies of the draft report and to distribute that draft report to the media. The opposition and my office correctly resisted that representation because, as far as we were concerned, it would have been the wrong way to handle these very sensitive issues. If anything, that case reaffirmed to me the importance of strong penalties in relation to the disclosure of draft reports. Those tough penalties are not impacted upon by the amendment that has been agreed to by the government, which is not only as a result of negotiations between the member for Calare and the government but also, importantly, as a result of representations made by my own office following the debate in the Main Committee last week. In considering this case, I did not think it as severe a misdemeanour to copy a report. I appreciate that, in the minds of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the two go together to widen the net to stop leaks. In reviewing the Whyalla situation, I could contemplate that the circumstance of copying the report was less severe than disclosing it. On balance, the opposition was therefore persuaded to support the amendment that has been agreed as a result of negotiation between all in the House, thereby creating a distinction between copying and disclosing. I am satisfied that, although this amendment was not imperative, it does not fundamentally undermine the strong suite of measures to deter leaking of draft reports. (Extension of time granted)

The opposition, as I have indicated, was persuaded to support this amendment by Mr Boyd Munro following discussions in my office late last Thursday. We then made a decision to encourage the government to come on board as we believe that there were other ways Labor could have handled this amendment. If anything, we had those discussions to avoid politicising the matter. Therefore, we decided it was in the best interests of the passage of this important bill to organise consensus and that is reflected in a further amendment to be moved as a result of this debate. When I spoke on this bill in the Main Committee, I also urged the minister to front up to the House and give some information relating to outstanding questions on the operation of the ATSB. I hope that will correctly be done this afternoon. The Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002 is exceptionally important. The amendments we are talking about go to the proper operation of the act in terms of the investigation of sensitive transport issues. For that reason, I also want to pinpoint another potential problem this afternoon which goes to the issue of fuel and the ethanol matter across the Treasury, transport, environment and consumer affairs portfolios. I believe this has been nothing short of a disgrace and will contribute, if we are not careful, to safety issues. The government knows that the ethanol content in fuel is out of control and causing damage to cars, farm engines and outboard motors. The impact on outboard motors is important to raise because it goes to transport safety. I have a letter from the Australian Maritime Industries Federation Ltd which represents recreational boating enthusiasts—people who are vitally concerned about transport safety. This organisation has written to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr Kemp, stating their concerns about the impact of ethanol on outboard motors. This is a very important maritime safety issue as there are thousands of Australians every weekend that fill their fuel tanks at the local service station, get in their boat and head off to sea fishing. The AMIF is concerned that more than 10 per cent ethanol may cause engine problems, including vapour lock or fuel starvation and starting and operating difficulties. As I speak, the government is refusing to take any action to put a limit on ethanol content in fuel thereby leaving consumers exposed and raising potentially very serious transport safety issues. I would have thought this a no-brainer, that I would not have to spell out the potential risk to life at sea in this situation. But the Minister for Transport and Regional Services stays mum and sits on his hands. I again call on the minister this evening—while he is Acting Prime Minister—in the interests of consumers and transport safety to put a cap on ethanol in fuel.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (5.49 p.m.)—In backing up my colleague who is moving this amendment, I want to praise Mr Boyd Munro and his organisation for bringing this fact to our attention. It is easy for people to skip over a two-year penalty and say, ‘That would never happen.’ I always like to remind people that I was in a government where four people went to jail because they used their government cars for private purposes. Twenty-five per cent of the cars in Australia are on a government contract and today every single one of those will be used for private purposes and for taking out people on their plastic magic—something which every single minister will do this week in Australia and should do. They do not want to waste meeting time. When people say, ‘Oh, no-one would ever be put in jail for two years for this,’ don’t you believe it. I have seen people go to jail for nothing. The safety Nazis keep coming at us and asking us questions. There is no-one in this place who is more at risk than I am. I have arguably the highest charter allowance in Australia of any member of parliament and I use every single cent of it. I also use it for commuting from the airport. In a three-year period, of the six light aircraft that I used, four crashed killing everyone on board. If there is anyone at risk and on the line with a relaxing of standards, it would be me. I can tell you, this proposition that a person would be put in jail for two years is outrageous. I understand the sentiments of the opposition spokesman in referring to ethanol. It was with very deep regret that 40,000 people whose jobs rely upon the sugar industry were absolutely ignored—and I hope the opposition takes note of this—when they asked for the excise tax to go on and an environmental rebate to be granted. When one rich person in Australia was disaffected and hurt by the action, there was immediate action by the government.

Mr WINDSOR (New England) (7.54 a.m.)—I would like to speak briefly to the amendment moved by the member for Calare to the Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002. I had the pleasure of moving this amendment in the Main Committee on behalf of the member for Calare, who was busy at the time. I made the comment in the Main Committee that this amendment should have been unnecessary. I think it indicates that there has been a lack of consultation through the process, particularly with AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA but with other pilot organisations, that the penalties in particular would impact upon. Having said that, I am pleased to see that the minister has accepted the spirit of this amendment and, even though there is going to be some procedural work done here in a moment to re-instigate the amendment in a slightly different form, the spirit of the amendment as moved by the member for Calare will be incorporated in the legislation. I would like to place on record the concerns that are still out there, particularly with AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA and other aircraft organisations, as to some of the other aspects of the bill. Rather than dig up an old trench again, I think it should be on record that there are concerns out there and perhaps those concerns will be raised in the Senate. Perhaps the minister and the department could look closely at those concerns and make further adjustments, if they deem it appropriate, when the Senate considers the bill as a whole. The shadow minister for transport made a very important comment in relation to transport safety involving the use of ethanol. I would like to comment on this briefly, given that the average time that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services will allow before taking a point of order is about one minute 15 seconds. I have some differences from time to time with the Deputy Prime Minister on a number of issues, but I happen to agree with him on this particular issue in the comments that he made today in the parliament at question time. I would suggest to the shadow minister that, rather than taking a negative approach to this particular safety issue in the use of ethanol in engines, perhaps he take a more positive approach. I think we should be looking at somewhere between five and 10 per cent almost immediately. If there is research to be done—and that research has already been done in the United States—I would encourage the government and the Deputy Prime Minister to get on with it rather than using delaying tactics and listening too much to what the opposition is saying about this issue. The safety aspects have been well and truly covered in the research in other parts of the world, and a mandatory level of five per cent introduced now can be well covered within any safety regime or scientific work that has been done anywhere in the world. So, with due regard to the shadow minister, I would advise him to do a bit more homework on that particular issue. However, I am very pleased that he is supportive of the member for Calare’s amendment to this piece of legislation.

Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (5.57 p.m.)—I want to again thank Boyd Munro and his group for bringing a number of these things to our attention. One of the other things that is very contentious—which I personally will be referring to and I am sure my Independent colleagues will be referring to in the Senate —is the right to search without a search warrant. All right, this is very serious stuff with respect to aeroplane accidents, but the safety Nazis do this all the time: they will intimidate legislators and say, ‘Oh, you’ll need this. If you don’t do this, this plane’s gonna crash,’ and they give themselves the most outrageous powers. A right to search without a search warrant! The common law gives you that right if it is thought that someone could be killed as a result of you not searching. The common law is already delivering these rights, and I think that the common law situation is superior to the situation that has been put forward here today. Again, on the ethanol question, it is important to add to what my colleague from New England said. A 10 per cent ethanol blend will make for a much safer environment in Australia, both to humans and to the general environment. That is why the United States has moved on this. We still have benzene and aromatics as octane enhancers to replace lead; the United States banned them long ago. We hope that the opposition spokesman is taking note of what is being said, because it is very important for him to understand this. The United States banned benzene and aromatics and replaced them with MTBE. Now the United States has decided that even MTBE is too dangerous and has banned MTBE, which is to be completely phased out in four years time. We hope that everyone in this House becomes very positive towards the ethanol alternative.

Mr ANDREN (Calare) (6.00 p.m.)—Given that result, I move:

This new and improved amendment to the Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002 allays just one of the many fears about this bill held by the pilots and owners of small aircraft and changes the maximum penalty for copying a draft report from two years imprisonment to those 20 penalty points as I outlined earlier. I do not want to take up the time of the House except to say that I am unable to see what harm might result from copying such a report without disclosing it, and I really do not know why it should be a criminal offence at all. I have received indications that this amendment will be supported by both the government and the opposition. I would like to thank the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the opposition for listening to those affected by this bill. But I should point out that there are many more concerns amongst those people in the aircraft fraternity. It appears that the consultation process in relation to the bill has completely failed in that there are several thousand people who have interests in it who, as far as I can see, have not been consulted. The consultation process was delegated to the ATSB, which is surprising given that it is the major beneficiary of the bill: the bill gives it extensive new powers and extends the scope of its operations to include rail transport for the first time. Once the ATSB had the running of the consultation process, it decided with whom it should consult and it decided to exclude AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA on the grounds that it was not a major aviation organisation. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA represents 1,400 pilots who have appointed it as their sole political representative on aviation matters. I note that two government speakers on this bill, the member for Flinders and the member for Barker, spent more than half their time talking about AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA in their contribution to the debate. ATSB’s arbitrary decision to exclude AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA meant that that organisation did not know what the bill contained and that the ATSB itself did not know the views of those 1,400 pilots. AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA was not the only important aviation organisation that was excluded. I received a call just last night from Paul Middleton, the executive director of the Australian Ultralight Federation. He said that he had known nothing about the bill until a few moments before he called me. It is not clear to me why the ATSB should bother investigating incidents—as opposed to accidents— involving private aircraft and ultralight aircraft. These are events that are much more akin to road traffic accidents than airliner accidents. Remember that an incident is something that might have been an accident but did not result in one. It is obvious why an accident involving an airliner should be investigated, but it is not obvious why an incident but it is not obvious why an incident involving only a private aircraft or ultralight should be investigated in the same way. Accidents, especially fatal ones, are a different matter. I note that neither the explanatory memorandum nor the second reading speech offers any explanation. Because these two clauses have been brought together, on the advice of the government, I am happy, on the advice I have got, to include them as the recommended amendment. But I am not that sure about a two-year jail penalty for disclosure. I put that on the record, but I do accept the advice about the seriousness of this offence and the arguments about the appropriateness of the penalty. However, I do refer to the comments made by the member for New England and hope that the government is of a mind to enable a brief Senate inquiry to allow some of the people who have been excluded from the process to make their point before this bill proceeds any further. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman) (6.04 p.m.)—I formally second the amendment to the

Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002. In doing so, I indicate the opposition’s support for the amendment as previously outlined in the debate.

Mr ROSS CAMERON (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services) (6.05 p.m.)—The government has accepted the amendment. It is our view that it does not frustrate the purposes of the Transport Safety Investigation Bill 2002. I suspect that, as a matter of commonsense, it probably does enhance the bill. We will certainly be supporting it and supporting the expeditious passage of the bill through the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Mr ROSS CAMERON (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services) (6.05 p.m.)—by leave—I move:

Mr ROSS CAMERON (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services) (6.06 p.m.)—by leave—I move:

About these photos

ABOUT

JOIN ASA

SEARCH

CONTACT

HOME

JOIN E-MAIL LIST

LINKS