Boyd
If the person did not "receive a draft report under subsection 26(1) or (4)", I don't see how the prohibition upon copying or disclosing in subsection 26(2) can apply to the person. Quite often, provisions are interpreted to mean what they say.
But how did the person get the draft report in the first place? As I said above, I think you will find that the ATSB will be very careful to ensure that these kinds of documents are delivered direct to the recipient, with big red confidential stamps all over the envelope. Any disclosure or copying from then on would be prima facie a consequence of an act or omission on the part of a person to whom the prohibition applies.
I'll lend a hand when the first prosecution for contravention of the section is launched.
As to consultation, could you point out which bits of Mr Secker's speech you think are inaccurate or incomplete?
... In September 2001—and we are talking about 12 months ago—an exposure draft of this bill was released. All major operators, organisations and associations in the aviation industry were invited to attend a multimodal consultation. Workshops were held on 21 September, only two days less than 12 months ago and stakeholders, including those associations and Air Safety Australia, were invited. There was also an open invitation to meet separately for those stakeholders who wished to discuss further aspects of the bill and I understand that this resulted in further consultation.
Additionally, all stakeholders were provided with a copy of the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech a few days after the bill was introduced into parliament on 20 June 2002, some three months ago. At the same time, we advised these groups that the bill would be scheduled for debate during the spring 2002 sittings which, of course, are the current sittings. The bill, and associated documentation, was put on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau Internet site shortly after that time. I take this opportunity to express my surprise at Air Safety Australia’s claims that this bill has suddenly appeared on the House list because that is clearly quite nonsensical.