De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Hansard source

In summing up debate on the Airspace Bill 2006, I would like to thank all of those who have made a contribution. Transferring the airspace regulatory function from Air Services to CASA will address a perceived conflict of interest between Air Services’ service delivery functions and its role as the airspace regulator.

The world is changing, and this bill will ensure that Australia is in a position to take advantage of the benefits that new technologies offer. We are keen to do so in a way that is inclusive of stakeholders and allows them to understand and embrace these changes. The bill will ensure airspace regulatory decisions made by CASA are consistent with government objectives subject to the safety of air navigation. Future reform proposals are to be better backed by solid analysis, including cost benefit and risk analysis.

The safety of air navigation will continue to be the most important consideration. However, CASA will also need to embrace opportunities to enhance efficiency, access, environmental protection and national security without compromising safety. The average pilot will not notice much change as a result of the shift of the regulatory function from Air Services to CASA, as Australia’s current airspace architecture will continue to change incrementally as it did under Air Services. The difference is that the policy, economic, safety and social components of airspace change will be properly and publicly accounted for and the process of airspace change will have been rigorously and transparently analysed.

I want to go to two points that previous speakers have raised. One was the call for an inquiry based on these bills before the House. Upon introducing these bills, the government recommended that they be referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee—so, in fact, that inquiry will proceed. The terms of reference will be determined shortly. There has also been reference made by previous speakers to the accident at Lockhart River. There were a number of points made with regard to this tragedy. However, an inquiry into CASA at this time, as has been suggested, prior to the completion of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s investigation and the coroner’s inquiry, would not be appropriate. A motion on this subject has already been debated and was defeated in the Senate on 8 November this year.

As has been mentioned, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into the Lockhart River tragedy has not yet been finalised, but in the interim reports it has been quite evident that there was no suggestion by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau of any failure by CASA. The interim reports also found that the aircraft was operating normally at the time of the accident and that there was no defect or malfunction evident. CASA is, as one would expect, fully cooperating with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. We expect that a confidential draft of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s final report will be provided directly to those parties that are involved and that there will be a public release of the final report in March 2007.

The department and the government are aware that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has issued a media release on the nonreporting of safety incidents by Transair. However, it has made it clear that this is a separate safety issue to the fatal accident. There will be an opportunity in March 2007 for all of those who are rightly concerned about this to look into the report clearly. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context