Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the opportunity to continue the Labor Party’s contribution to this important debate on the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Mutual Recognition with New Zealand) Bill 2005 [2006]. As has been acknowledged by all speakers, it is an important debate. It is important because the bill has the potential to lead to an overall reduction—and I think people should appreciate this—in safety standards across the Australian aviation industry. It may even result in the shift of some aviation operations across the Tasman and the loss of Australian jobs and economic opportunity.

The bill provides for mutual recognition of certain air operator certificates issued by the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority in New Zealand. It is—and I am surprised the government did not take this on board—widely opposed by industry, including the Australian and International Pilots Association; the Australian Federation of Air Pilots; the Flight Attendants Association, international and domestic divisions; and the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association. These organisations, which are intimately involved in aviation in Australia, are rightly concerned about security and safety, which the Australian public have expressed concerns about, yet the government has dismissed those concerns in pursuing this bill.

I say that because the government is flying in the face of industry opposition. The fact is that these organisations hold serious fears that the bill will potentially have a major impact on safety standards and they predict a loss of Australian aviation operations to New Zealand. The problem is that this bill has been on the government’s agenda since it signed the Air Services Agreement on 8 August 2002. It is simple in its mind: we cuddled up to New Zealand; therefore we have got to deliver the outcome of that meeting without any consideration of safety, the fight against terrorism and the needs of the Australian travelling public. The Labor Party, through our caucus, have now twice considered the government’s attempt to provide for mutual recognition of the air operators certificates by the New Zealand and Australian aviation authorities.

The 2003 bill lapsed in the absence of Senate support, and I suppose you have to have regard for why it lacked support in the Senate back in 2003. It failed because the government had refused to undertake any action to justify the bill or assess likely safety outcomes. Just imagine that: aviation is about the safety of the travelling public, and back in 2003, despite concerns in the Senate, the government refused to take any action to justify this bill and have a look at safety implications. That goes to the failure of the government to make a comparative assessment of safety operating systems in Australia and New Zealand and to undertake a regulatory analysis of the systems of the two trans-Tasman nations, which is the fundamental reason why the opposition opposes the bill.

I wonder whether the government would adopt a similar view if it were related to quarantine and the potential impact on the agricultural industry. I wonder, for example, where Paul Neville, the chair of one of the government’s committees, would stand. I noticed him supporting this bill. I wonder what his view would be, given his rural seat, if all of a sudden, because New Zealand demanded it, we dropped our strict rules on quarantine and the entry of some New Zealand products into Australia. The government would be up in arms. When it comes to the safety of the travelling public and the fight against terrorism, all of a sudden we as a nation have to roll over to potentially lower standards on aviation safety because New Zealand demands it. I am exceptionally worried about where the safety of the travelling public in the future might end up.

The government seems intent on just going ahead, blinded by the drive of liberalising air services arrangements as part of its so-called wider economic reforms in the transport sector. If we actually wanted to do something about economic reform in the transport sector then we would be concerned about issues such as how to improve our national rail system, how to overcome some of the transport blockages with respect to port access and how to overcome our shortage of labour in the trucking industry at the moment, as we cannot attract and keep people. They are the types of issues which go to fundamental economic reform in the transport sector in Australia, not this endeavour to reduce safety standards.

It is particularly baffling that the government would pursue this line of action when what is at risk is a diminishing of Australia’s rigorous aviation safety standards and the loss of Australian jobs and operations. This is a huge stake that the government surely understands, so I ask: why does it continue to fail to examine these issues? I think it is important to acknowledge concerns about safety implications and for us to commit to understanding an assessment of the possible safety implications of this bill. I therefore refer to the fact that in August 2006 the Department of Transport and Regional Services released International fatality rates: a comparison of Australian civil aviation fatality rates with international data. The report noted that Australia recorded fatality rates similar to or lower than the corresponding rates of the other countries examined. Those countries were examined against North America and the United Kingdom as the world’s best practice benchmark for aviation safety. The findings demonstrate two important points: firstly, Australia overall has a good safety record according to world’s best practice; and, secondly, the general aviation fatal accident rate for Australia was lower than the accident rate recorded for New Zealand, the country that the government is seeking mutual recognition with, which is the thrust of this debate, and it showed a downward trend in Australia.

The report by the department goes to the heart of the opposition’s concerns about this bill—the safety of Australians involved in aviation travel, which is more important than ever, given the fight against terrorism. It raises issues of Australian and New Zealand aviation safety standards, which are not directly comparable. People have to appreciate this: they are not directly comparable, and yet the bill’s objective is to permit the holder of an air operator certificate issued in New Zealand for the operation of an aircraft of more than 30 seats or 15,000 kilograms to conduct operations in Australia without having an Australian issued air operator certificate.

One example of what this means for air safety for air travellers is a lowered cabin crew ratio on New Zealand carriers, where the law stipulates a minimum of one crew member per 50 seats compared to Australia’s ration of one crew member for 39 passengers, not seats. That is a pretty distinct safety issue. In that context, I refer to an incident on board a Qantas aircraft from Melbourne to Launceston only a matter of a couple of years ago. The cabin crew were able to disarm a person who unfortunately had some medical concerns. That reinforces the need to have an adequate number of crew on board as cabin attendants. It is about time people understood that flight attendants are not engaged to serve tea and coffee. More importantly, flight attendants are there for security purposes. The last thing that we should be doing is lowering the number of flight attendants on Australian aircraft.

This is a debate about aviation safety standards; this is a not a simple debate about us having to cuddle up to New Zealand on mutual recognition issues. I am a very strong supporter of CER, but this goes to the heart of the desire that we have always had as a nation to put in place the safest possible aviation standards in the world. We have a proud international record. Many nations aspire to achieve Australia’s achievements on aviation safety. Given the fight against terrorism and as reflected by the Launceston incident, these standards are more important than ever. Finally, there is an acceptance in the aviation industry that flight attendants perform a variety of functions, and perhaps their most important function is that of being air marshals. There have been air marshals put in place by government for terrorism purposes, but they are only in some planes. Flight attendants are on all planes, so we have got to make sure that there are adequate numbers to protect passengers and to protect the Australian community.

I am amazed that, given these considerations, the government has failed to acknowledge this safety concern—and this despite the issue of the disparate safety standards between Australia and New Zealand being raised during the inquiry into this bill by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in 2003. During this inquiry, several submissions to the committee highlighted safety standard concerns. A submission from the Australian and International Pilots Association said, ‘New Zealand’s aviation safety system may well comply with the standards required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and still offer a lesser standard of aviation safety than Australia’s system.’ That is pretty telling because there are base standards—minimum standards—that are acceptable, but then there is what we do as a nation, for more abundant caution, which is to require more rigorous standards. Simply because there is a base standard does not mean it is acceptable. The more rigorous standards accepted by both sides of parliament for decades are the standards that we should maintain as a nation. That is the point made in the submission made by the Australian and International Pilots Association.

While pilot error in the industry is said to be in decline, now is not the time for the government to be taking its eye off the ball where air safety is concerned. Factors of fatigue, weather, congestion and automated systems have complicated safety and highlighted the ever-important need to make aviation as safe as possible. A good safety record, I suggest to the House, is a judgement of past performance, but it does not guarantee the future, and without appropriate investigations of the likely safety and economic outcomes Australia cannot consider a bill that is potentially a great threat to our consistently high track record on safety.

I also note that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee did not just hear concerns regarding safety standards but also took evidence that some airlines may manipulate the new rules by servicing Australian domestic routes while operating under New Zealand regulations and lower cost burdens. How many Australian jobs does the government predict might migrate over the Tasman to New Zealand if it costs less for a carrier to operate in New Zealand than in Australia? Why can’t the government answer such a straightforward question that currently burdens the minds of many Australian aviation workers? In a submission to the inquiry, for example, Virgin Blue suggested that mutual recognition had the potential to create a race between carriers towards the cheapest regulatory option. Is that what the government wants—something similar to its industrial relations system, with an aviation industry that does not rank safety and Australian jobs as the highest priority? That is the conclusion I come to.

It is also likely that, due to differing operational requirements, mutual recognition between Australia and New Zealand will have economic implications for aircraft operators and also consequent flow-on effects for their employees and workers. There is clearly a potential disparity between the salaries of Australian and New Zealand pilots who operate the same type of aircraft but under different air operator certificates. This could have an impact on industrial relations and ultimately the stability of the sector’s workforce. The question is whether or not Australia needs this, in light of the radical industrial relations laws that the Howard government pushed through earlier this year.

To say that the government has not considered the economic cost of this bill is simply a lie. It is also certain that the implementation of mutual recognition will carry no direct financial cost to the Australian government; yet I believe there will be a cost to the Australian people in terms of safety standards—which is what drives the opposition in this debate—and the potential for jobs to be taken offshore due to the commercial advantage provided by New Zealand air operator certificates because of lower safety standards.

The question to be answered by the member for Fisher, who is intent on making a contribution to this bill, is: is it appropriate to provide this advantage to overseas operators when there is a cost to Australia? Qantas, for example, already operates in New Zealand via its wholly-owned subsidiary, Jetconnect. Since October 2002, Jetconnect has been operating domestic services in New Zealand with aircraft that are registered in New Zealand and flown by pilots holding New Zealand air operator certificates. While we accept that an Australian air operator certificate is equal to that of an air operator certificate issued in New Zealand, the standards are inconsistent.

This legislation was introduced in June 2004 and now, 16 months on, the government has still taken no action at all—and this goes to the crux of this debate—to properly assess its impacts. The opposition, therefore, cannot accept the introduction of a new aviation regulatory regime in the absence of any assessment of likely safety and economic outcomes. Why wouldn’t a government, in assessing the impact of a bill which goes to aviation safety, commission an independent study of these fundamental issues? I have come to the conclusion that it is because the bill is not about aviation safety; it is about the government’s industrial relations agenda.

This is foolhardy, and I only hope that it does not go wrong. If something were to go wrong, for example, because of a reduced number of flight attendants, which could endanger aviation safety in Australia, then the responsibility for that act will rest on the shoulders of the Howard government. That is a very serious worry, as the Launceston accident proved. In that instance there was a person on board who had mental health problems and had to be overcome by flight attendants. There was an adequate number of flight attendants on that plane under Australian aviation standards. That incident showed that we have to use abundant caution in the standards that we have in Australia.

This bill potentially destroys those standards. It is the first step in an endeavour by some in the aviation industry, with the support of the Australian government, to create a bridgehead which will lead to a further weakening of Australian standards with respect to safety and the number of flight attendants on board aircraft to protect the Australian travelling public.

In conclusion, I can only say: we will be watching. If this goes wrong, we are going to remind the government of its foolhardy decision. The point of view of the opposition is: when it comes to safety, be cautious and err on the side of having more rigorous standards—because I fear the consequences of liberalisation without proper consideration of the needs of the Australian public and our nation’s best interests.

See this speech in context